外文文献翻译-国际商务谈判

外文文献翻译-国际商务谈判外文文献翻译InternationalBusinessNegotiationsPervezGhauri&Jean-ClaudeUsunierWhentwopeoplecommunicate,theyrarelytalkaboutpreciselythesamesubject,foreffectivemeaningisflavoredbyeachperson’sowncognitiveworldandculturalconditioning.Negotiationistheprocessbywhichatleasttwopartiestrytoreachanagreementonmattersofmutualinterest.Thenegotiationprocessproceedsasaninterplayofperception,informationprocessing,andreaction,allofwhichturnonimagesofreality(accurateornot),onimplicitassumptionsregardingtheissuebeingnegotiated,andonanunderlyingmatrixofconventionalwisdom,beliefs,andsocialexpectations.Negotiationsinvolvetwodimensions:amatterofsubstanceandtheprocess.Thelatterisrarelyamatterofrelevancewhennegotiationsareconductedwithinthesameculturalsetting.Onlywhendealingwithsomeonefromanothercountrywithadifferentculturalbackgrounddoesprocessusuallybecomeacriticalbarriertosubstance;insuchsettingsprocessfirstneedstobeestablishedbeforesubstantivenegotiationscancommence.Thisbecomesmoreapparentwhenthenegotiationprocessisinternational,whenculturaldifferencesmustbebridged.Whennegotiatinginternationally,thistranslatesintoanticipatingculturallyrelatedideasthataremostlikelytobeunderstoodbyapersonofagivenculture.Discussionsarefrequentlyimpededbecausethetwosidesseemtobepursuingdifferentpathsoflogic;inanycrossculturalcontext,thepotentialformisunderstandingandtalkingpasteachotherisgreat.Negotiatinginternationallyalmostcertainlymeanshavingtocopewithnewandinconsistentinformation,usuallyaccompaniedbynewbehavior,socialenvironments,andevensightsandsmells.Thegreatertheculturaldifferences,themorelikelybarrierstocommunicationandmisunderstandingsbecome.Whenonetakestheseeminglysimpleprocessofnegotiationsintoacross-culturalcontext,itbecomesevenmorecomplexandcomplicationstendtogrowexponentially.Itisnaiveindeedtoventureintointernationalnegotiationwiththebeliefthat“afterall,peopleareprettymuchalikeeverywhereandbehavemuchaswedo.”Eveniftheywearthesameclothesyoudo,speakEnglishaswellas(orevenbetterthan)you,andprefermanyofthecomfortsandattributesofAmericanlife(food,hotels,sports),itwouldbefoolishtoviewa1memberofanothercultureasabrotherinspirit.Thatnegotiationstyleyouusesoeffectivelyathomecanbeineffectiveandinappropriatewhendealingwithpeoplefromanotherculturalbackground;infactitsusecanoftenresultinmoreharmthangain.Heightenedsensitivity,moreattentiontodetail,andperhapsevenchangesinbasicbehavioralpatternsarerequiredwhenworkinginanotherculture.Membersofoneculturemayfocusondifferentaspectsofanagreement(e.g.,legal,financial)thanmaymembersofanotherculture(personal,relationships).Theimplementationofabusinessagreementmaybestressedinoneculture,whiletherangeandpreventionofpracticalproblemsmaybeemphasizedinanotherculture.Insomecultures,theattentionofpeopleisdirectedmoretowardthespecificdetailsoftheagreement(documentingtheagreement),whileotherculturesmayfocusonhowthepromisescanbekept(processandimplementation).Americansnegotiateacontract;theJapanesenegotiateapersonalrelationship.Cultureforcespeopletoviewandvaluedifferentlythemanysocialinteractionsinherentinfashioninganyagreement.Negotiationscaneasilybreakdownbecauseofalackofunderstandingoftheculturalcomponentofthenegotiationprocess.Negotiatorswhotakethetimetounderstandtheapproachthattheotherpartiesarelikelytouseandtoadapttheirownstylestothatonearelikelytobemoreeffectivenegotiators.AmericanandRussianpeoplearenotsimilar;theirethicalattitudesdonotcoincide:theyevaluatebehaviordifferently.WhatanAmericanmayconsidernormative,positivebehavior(negotiatingandreachingacompromisewithanenemy),aRussianperceivesasshowingcowardice,weakness,andunworthiness;theword“deal”hasastrongnegativeconnotation,eventodayincontemporaryRussia.Similarly,forRussians,compromisehasnegativeconnotation;principlesaresupposedtobeinviolableandcompromiseisamatterofintegrity(TheRussiansarenotalonehere:aMexicanwillnotcompromiseasamatterofhonor,dignity,andintegrity;likewise,anArabfearslossofmanlinessifhecompromises.)Anegotiationistreatedasawholewithoutconcessions.AttheStrategicArmsLimitationTalks(SALT)talks,theAmericansthoughttheyhadanagreement(meaningconclusivecommitment),whiletheRussianssaiditwasanunderstanding(meaninganexpressionofmutualviewpointorattitude).WhentheAmericansthoughttheyhadanunderstanding,theRussianssaiditwasaproceduralmatter,meaningtheyhadagreedtoaprocessforconductingthenegotiation.Differentculturalsystemscanproducedivergentnegotiatingstyles--stylesshapedbyeachnation’sculture,geography,history,andpoliticalsystem.Unlessyouseetheworldthroughtheother’seyes(no2matterhowsimilartheyappeartoyou),youmaynotbeseeingorhearingthesame.Noonecanusuallyavoidbringingalonghisorherownculturalassumptions,images,andprejudicesorotherattitudinalbaggageintoanynegotiatingsituation.Thewayonesucceedsincrossculturalnegotiationsisbyfullyunderstandingothers,usingthatunderstandingtoone’sownadvantagetorealizewhateachpartywantsfromthenegotiations,andtoturnthenegotiationsintoawin-winsituationforbothsides.Afewpotentialproblemsoftenencounteredduringacross-culturalnegotiationinclude(Frank,1992):Insufficientunderstandingofdifferentwaysofthinking.Insufficientattentiontothenecessitytosaveface.Insufficientknowledgeofthehostcountry--includinghistory,culture,government,statusofbusiness,imageofforeigners.Insufficientrecognitionofpoliticalorothercriteria.Insufficientrecognitionofthedecision-makingprocess.Insufficientunderstandingoftheroleofpersonalrelationsandpersonalities.Insufficientallocationoftimefornegotiations.Overtwo-thirdsofU.S.-Japanesenegotiationeffortsfaileventhoughbothsideswanttoreachasuccessfulbusinessagreement(TheU.S.DepartmentofCommerceisevenmorepessimistic;itestimatesthatforeverysuccessfulAmericannegotiationwiththeJapanese,therearetwenty-fivefailures.)Infact,thesenumbersholdtrueformostcross-culturalmeetings.Oftenbarrierstoasuccessfulagreementareofaculturalnatureratherthanofaneconomicalorlegalnature.Sinceeachsideperceivestheotherfromitsownethnocentricbackgroundandexperience,oftenneithersidefullycomprehendswhythenegotiationsfailed.Itispreciselythislackofknowledgeconcerningthecultureandthe“alien”and“unnatural”expectationsoftheothersidethathinderseffectivenegotiationwiththosefromanotherculture.Incross-culturalnegotiations,manyoftherulestaughtanduseddomesticallymaynotapply--especiallywhentheymaynotbeculturallyacceptabletotheotherparty.FormostWesternnegotiatorsthisincludestheconceptsofgiveandtake,ofbargaining,andevenofcompromise.Thestereotypical,commonWesternidealofapersuasivecommunicator--highlyskilledindebate,abletoovercomeobjectionswithverbalflair,anenergeticextrovert--mayberegardedbymembersofotherculturesasunnecessarilyaggressive,superficial,insincere,evenvulgarandrepressive.TootherAmericans,thevaluedAmericantraitsofdirectnessandfranknessshowevidenceofgoodintentionsandpersonalconvictions.ToanAmericanitiscomplimentarytobe3calledstraightforwardandaggressive.Thisisnotnecessarilyso,however,formembersofothercultures.Todescribeapersonas“aggressive”isaderogatorycharacterizationtoaBritishcitizen.TotheJapanese,thoseverysametraitsindicatelackofconfidenceinone’sconvictionsandinsincerity.Instead,termssuchasthoughtful,cooperative,considerate,andrespectfulinstillpositivesintheJapaneseandmanyAsiancultures.Domestically,thestudyofnegotiationtendstoencompassbusinessrelationshipsbetweenparties,tactics,bargainingstrategies,contingencypositions,andsoon.However,inacross-culturalcontext,besidestheusualrulesofnegotiation,onehastobewaryoffinenuancesinrelationshipsandpracticesandhowtheyareperceivedandexecutedbymembersoftheotherculture.Thetwobusinessnegotiatorsareseparatedfromeachothernotonlybyphysicalfeatures,atotallydifferentlanguage,andbusinessetiquette,butalsobyadifferentwaytoperceivetheworld,todefinebusinessgoals,toexpressthinkingandfeeling,toshoworhidemotivationandinterests.Fromtheotherparty’sperspective,forexample,tosomeculturesAmericansmayappearaggressiveandrude,whiletoothers,thoseverysameAmericansappearcalmanduninterested.1TheArtofNegotiationsTheword“negotiations”stemsfromtheRomanwordnegotiarimeaning“to(not)andotium(easecarryonbusiness”andisderivedfromtheLatinrootwordsnegorleisure).ObviouslyitwasastruefortheancientRomansasitisformostbusinesspersonsoftodaythatnegotiationsandbusinessinvolveshardwork.Amoderndefinitionofnegotiationistwoormorepartieswithcommon(andconflicting)interestswhoenterintoaprocessofinteractionwiththegoalofreachinganagreement(preferablyofmutualbenefit).JohnKennethGalbraithsaid“Sexapart,negotiationisthemostcommonandproblematicinvolvementofonepersonwithanother,andthetwoactivitiesarenotunrelated.”Negotiationsareadecision-makingprocessthatprovidesopportunitiesforthepartiestoexchangecommitmentsorpromisesthroughwhichtheywillresolvetheirdisagreementsandreachasettlement.Anegotiationistwoormorepartiesstrivingtoagreewhentheirobjectivesdonotcoincide.Negotiationconsistsoftwodistinctprocesses:creatingvalueandclaimingvalue.Creatingvalueisacooperativeprocesswherebythepartiesinthenegotiationseektorealizethefullpotentialbenefitoftherelationship.Claimingvalueisessentiallyacompetitiveprocess.Thekeytocreatingvalueisfindingintereststhatthepartieshave4incommonorthatcomplementeachother,thenreconcilingandexpandingupontheseintereststocreateawin-winsituation.Partiesatthenegotiatingtableareinterdependent.Theirgoalsarelockedtogether.Asellercannotexistwithoutabuyer.Thepurposeofanegotiationisajointdecision-makingprocessthroughwhichthepartiescreateamutuallyacceptablesettlement.Theobjectiveistopursueawin-winsituationforbothparties.NegotiationstakeplacewithinthecontextofthefourCs:commoninterest,conflictinginterests,compromise,andcriteria(MoranandStripp,1991).Commoninterestconsidersthefactthateachpartyinthenegotiationshares,has,orwantssomethingthattheotherpartyhasordoes.Withoutacommongoal,therewouldbenoneedfornegotiation.Conflictoccurswhenpeoplehaveseparatebutconflictinginterests.Areasofconflictinginterestscouldincludepayment,distribution,profits,contractualresponsibilities,andquality.Compromiseinvolvesresolvingareasofdisagreement.Althoughawin-winnegotiatedsettlementwouldbebestforbothparties,thecompromisesthatarenegotiatedmaynotproducetheresult.Thecriteriaincludetheconditionsunderwhichthenegotiationstakeplace.Thenegotiationprocesshasfewrulesofprocedure.Rulesofprocedureareasmuchaproductofnegotiationastheissues.Overtime,thefourCschangeandtheinformation,know-how,andalternativesavailabletothenegotiatinginternationalcompanyandthehostcountryalsochange,resultinginafreshinterpretationofthefourCs,theenvironment,andtheperspective.Inessence,negotiationtakesplacewithinthecontextofthepolitical,economic,social,andculturalsystemsofacountry.Thetheoryofthenegotiationprocessincludesthefollowingdimensions:(1)bargainercharacteristics,(2)situationalconstraints,(3)theprocessofbargaining,and(4)negotiationoutcomes.Thistheoryisbasedonactorswhosharecertainvaluesandbeliefsbasedontheirculture.Theseactorsfunctioninbusinessandeconomicsituationsthatalsohaveculturalinfluences,andtheyactincertainculturallyinscribedways.Webargainwhen:Aconflictofinterestexistsbetweentwoormoreparties;thatis,whatis,whatonewantsisnotnecessarilywhattheotheronewants.Afixedorsetofrulesorproceduresforresolvingtheconflictdoesnotexist,orthepartiesprefertoworkoutsideofasetofrulestoinventtheirownsolutiontotheconflict.5Theparties,atleastforthemoment,prefertosearchforagreementratherthantofightopenly,tohaveonesidecapitulate,topermanentlybreakoffcontact,ortotaketheirdisputetoahigherauthoritytoresolveit.Insummary,negotiationsprimarilyconsistsoffiveaspects:(1)goals:motivatingthepartiestoenter;(2)theprocessofnegotiatingthatinvolvescommunicationsandactions;(3)outcomes;(4)preexistingbackgroundfactorsofculturaltraditionsandrelations;and(5)specificsituationalconditionsunderwhichthenegotiationisconducted.VerbalLanguageishighlyimportant.Whenpeoplefromdifferentculturescommunicate,culture-specificfactorsaffecthowtheyencodeanddecodetheirmessages.Negotiatorsshouldcheckunderstandingperiodically,moveslowly,usequestionsliberally,andavoidslangandidioms.Eventhediscussionofnegotiation,compromise,andagreementhasdifferentmeaningstodifferentcultures.BoththeAmericanandKoreanmeaningsfortheword“corruption”arenegative;howeverintheUnitedStates,thewordconnotesbeingmorallywrongwhilefortheKoreansitimpliesbeingsociallyunfortunate.TheMexicanwillnotcompromise66asamatterofhonor,dignity,andintegrity.TheArabfearslossofmanlinessifhecompromises.InRussia,compromisehasanegativeconnotation;principlesaresupposedtobeinviolableandcompromiseisamatterofintegrity.ForRussians,anegotiationistreatedasawholewithoutconcessions.IntheAmericanculture,thosewhorefusetobargainareviewedascold,secretive,andnotreallyseriousaboutconductingbusiness.TheDutcharenothagglers;youshouldmakeyourofferfairlyclosetoyourtrueaskingprice;ifyoustartmakinglargeconcessionsyouwilllosetheirconfidence.TheSwedesaremethodical,detailedindividualswhoareslowtochangepositions.BargainingisnothighlyvaluedinSwedishculture;thosewhobargain,whoattempttonegotiatebyofferingahigherpriceinordertoconcedetoalowerprice,canbeviewedasuntrustworthy,inefficient,orperhapsoutforpersonalgainattheexpenseofothers.NonverbalCommunicationsinCross-CulturalNegotiationsNonverbalbehaviormaybedefinedasanybehavior,intentionalorunintentional,beyondthewordsthemselvesthatcanbeinterpretedbyareceiverashavingmeaning.Nonverbalbehaviorscouldincludefacialexpressions,eyecontact,gestures,bodymovements,posture,physicalappearance,space,touch,andtimeusage.Theyarealldifferentfromculturetoculture.Nonverbalbehaviorseitheraccompanyverbalmessagesorareusedindependentlyofverbalmessages.Theymayaffirmandemphasizeornegateandevencontradictspokenmessages.Nonverbalbehaviorsaremorelikelytobeusedunconsciouslyandspontaneouslybecausetheyarehabitualandroutinebehaviors.Thewiderangeofbehaviorscallednonverbalbehaviorcanbedividedintosevencategories.Gestures,bodymovement,facialmovement,andeyecontactarecombinedinthekinesiccodecommonlycalledbodylanguage.Vocalicsreferstocallvocalactivityotherthantheverbalcontextitself.Alsocalledparalanguage,vocalicsincludestone,volume,andsoundsthatarenotwords.Behaviorsthatinvolvetouchingareplacedinthehapticscode.Theuseofspaceiscalledproxemics,andtheuseoftimeischronemics.Physicalappearanceincludesbodyshapeandsize,aswellasclothingandjewelry.Finally,artifactsrefertoobjectsthatareassociatedwithaperson,suchasone’sdesk,car,orbooks.Itshouldbeemphasizedthatthesecodesdonotusuallyfunctionindependentlyorsequentially;rather,theyworksimultaneously.Inaddition,nonverbalbehaviorisalwayssendingmessages;wecannotcommunicatewithoutusingthem,although,attimes,themessagesmaybeambiguous.Thiswiderangeofnonverbalbehaviorsservesvariousfunctionsinallface-to-faceencounters.Mostimportant,emotionalmessagesatthenegotiatingtableareexpressednonverballybygestures,toneofvoice,orfacialexpressions.Theotherside’sinterpretationofyourstatementdependsonthenonverbalmorethanwhatwasactuallysaid.Nonverbalcommunicationsissignificant.From:InternationalBusinessNegotiations,20017国际商务谈判伯维茨.高利,简.科劳德.阿斯尼尔当两个人交流时,他们很少精确地谈论相同的问题,因为实际的意思会受到每个人认知的世界和文化熏陶的影响。谈判是至少有两方试图就共同的利益达成协议的过程。谈判过程中的收益是相互认识、信息处理以及反应,所有这些都依赖于现实中的概念（正确与否）,依赖于正在谈判中隐含的假设问题,依赖于传统观念、信仰、社会的期望的基本模式。谈判涉及两个层面:实质与程序问题。后者在相同的文化背景进行谈判时是很少有相关的问题。只有与来自不同文化背景的国家谈判是,过程往往成为关键内容的障碍;在这种背景下，过程首先要能在实质性谈判开始前制定。更为明显的是,在国际性的谈判进程中,必须克服文化差异。国际谈判时,这就变成预测与文化相关的问题,在特定文化中才最有可能被人们所理解。讨论中常常会有阻碍因为双方似乎采用不同的逻辑方式;在任何跨文化背景下,相互间的误会可能性非常大。几乎可以肯定,在国际谈判中是解决矛盾和新信息,往往伴随着新的行为,社会环境,甚至目光和气味。文化差异越大,越有可能成为误解和沟通的障碍。当把一个看似简单的谈判过程变成在跨文化背景下进行,它变得更加复杂和困难。带着这样想法,“毕竟是人,几乎到处都非常相似，都像我们这样做。”在国际谈判中冒险确实太天真了。即使穿着和你同样的衣服、也和你一样说英语（或者比你说的更好），喜欢许多使生活舒适的东西及美国式的生活特性（食品、酒店、体育）,这将是愚蠢的,把另一种文化中的成员理解成一样的人。这种谈判风格在国内使用是如此有效,但在和不同的文化背景下的人谈判时就可能不合适;事实上其结果往往是弊多于利。提高警觉,更注重细节,甚至改变基本的行为方式，在另外一种文化中工作时是有必要的。一种文化的成员可能集中在协议的各方面（如法律、财务）而不是另一种文化的成员上（个人，关系）。商务协议的执行,可能强调在一种文化中,而各种实际问题的范围和障碍可能强调在另一种文化中。在一些文化中，人民的注意力更多的放在具体的协议细节上（记录协议）,而其他文化可能会集中在如何能保证承诺（程序和执行）。美国人谈判注重合同;日本人谈判注重个人的关系。文化的迫使人们在制定任何协议时，对很多社会交往有不同的看法和评价。谈判很容易破裂是由于对谈判过程中的文化因素缺乏了解。谈判的人花时间去了解另一方可能采取的方法并相应地采用他们自己的风格,才可能成为一个更有效的谈判者。美国人和俄罗斯人并不相同;道德观念不相吻合的:他们对行为的评价不同。美国人认为是合乎规范的,积极的行为（谈判并和对手达成妥协）,俄罗斯人却理8解为胆怯、软弱,一文不值。“交易”有浓厚的消极意义,即使在今天,当代的俄罗斯。同样地,对于俄罗斯人妥协含有负面的意义。原则是不可侵犯的,而且应该是完整的妥协（俄国人在这里并不孤单:墨西哥人不会把妥协视为荣誉、尊严和正直;同样地,阿拉伯人担心妥协会失去男子气）。谈判作为一个整体来说不能让步。在限制战略武器谈判中,美国人认为他们已经达成一致（即最后承诺）,而俄罗斯人则说,有了一定的了解（意思表达彼此的观点和态度）。当美国人以为他们了解了,俄罗斯人则认为是程序上的问题,也就是双方可以按商定的程序进行谈判。不同文化体系能形成不同的谈判风格——各民族的文化、地理、历史、政治制度塑造了不同的风格。除非你从对方的角度来看（不管出现在你面前的是如此的类似）,你看到或听到的可能都不一样。谁也不能避免经常带着自己的文化假设、概念、偏见或其他多余的东西到谈判中。一个成功的方法,跨文化的谈判中要全面地了解他人,利用这种认识作为自己的优势,为实现各自所希望的结果,并把谈判变成了双方双赢的局面。一些潜在的问题经常会跨文化谈判中遇到:（福兰克,1992年）:99没有充分了解不同的思维方式。没有充分重视面子问题。对东道国的认识不足--包括历史、文化、政治、商业地位、外国人的形象。没有充分认识政治或其他标准。没有充分认识到决策过程。没有充分了解私人关系和个性的地位。谈判时间分配不够。超过三分之二的美国与日本的谈判失败,即使双方都想要达成一个成功的商业协议（美国商务部更为悲观;它估计,美国和日本的每一个成功的谈判,有25%是失败的。）其实,这些数字在大多数的跨文化会议中被证明是正确的。成功协议的障碍往往是文化本质的,而不是一个经济或法律的问题。因为双方都从自己种族的背景和经验来理解别人,双方都没有充分了解到谈判为什么会失败。正是这种缺乏关于文化的知识和对另一方“外国的”和“不合情理的”期望阻碍与另一种文化的人进行有效的谈判。在跨文化的谈判中,许多学到的规则适合国内使用的不一定受用--特别是当他们不能接受对方的文化时。对于大多数西方谈判者的观念这包括互相让步,还价、甚至是妥协。陈旧的、普遍的西方理想的有说服力沟通者——高技能的辩论技巧,能够用语言天赋克服障碍,精力充沛外向的人——可能被其他文化中的成员则认为是不必要的挑衅的,肤浅的，缺乏诚意的,甚至是低俗的和镇压的。对于其他美国人来说,美国人直接和坦诚的优点显示了他们的善意和个人信念。美国人赞赏直接和有进取心的人。但是，这对其他文化的成员就未必如此。形容一个人是“侵略的”，在英国人看来是含有贬义的。在日本人看来,这些相同的特性表明对自己的信念缺乏信心和诚意。相反,如有创见、合作、体谅、尊重这些词正面灌输在日本和许多亚洲的文化中。国内的商务谈判的研究包含各方之间的商业关系、策略、谈判策略、应变的立场,等等。但是,在跨文化方面,除了谈判中一般的规则,你必须注意在人际关系和行为活动中的细微差别,以及其他文化中成员是怎样理解。两个商业谈判对手脱离对方不仅是不同的身体特征和完全不同的语言和商务礼仪,而且以不同的方式看待世界,确定商业目标,表达想法和感受,以及显示或隐藏的动机和利益。从对方的角度来看待,例如，在某些文化中美国人显得侵略