Printer Friendly

Cognitive negotiation schemata in the IT industries of Japan and Finland.

ABSTRACT

The existing literature emphasizes the importance of negotiation skills in the field of IT. However, negotiation and negotiation styles in the IT industry have received limited attention. This original empirical research compares the negotiation schemata of Finnish and Japanese IT business people. The study identifies negotiation schemata used in one or both culture groups. Negotiators with greater experience and power in the negotiation process command more schemata. However, neither population enjoys the full range of negotiation schemata. Business negotiators in or out of IT and these cultures may benefit from knowing the schemata and the results of matching and mismatching.

Keywords: Negotiation; Finland; Japan; Information Technology; Schemata

INTRODUCTION

In the information technology (IT) industry, where collaboration among various professionals and customers is important, different kinds of negotiation skills are needed. Although the IT industry appears very international and deeply collaborative (Whitehead, 2007), we can assume that practices of negotiation participants vary in different cultures, as negotiation styles are culturally associated (Adair, Taylor, & Tinsley, 2009; Nishiyama, 1999; Tinsley, 2001). That is, if two cultures differ considerably, negotiation styles might also differ. Although the existing literature highlights the importance of negotiation skills in the field of IT; negotiation styles per se have received only scarce attention in the field of IT. This lack has developed despite the literature showing that negotiation skills directly impact for instance IT and software outsourcing decisions (Davis, Ein-dor, King, & Torkzadeh, 2006; Kuivanen & Nahar, 2009), price negotiation of IT services (Vykoukal, Wolf, & Beck, 2009), IT project management (Abraham, Beath, Bullen, Gallagher, & Goles, 2006), and service contracts (Kim, Agrawal, Jayaraman, & Rao, 2003; Raghu, Woo, Mohan, & Rao, 2008) as well as among individuals involved in organization-wide IT implementations (Matsuura, Fuller, Kaufman, Kim, & Baba, 2013).

Based on the research gap discussed above, the research aim of this study is to increase our understanding of negotiation styles among negotiators in an era when technology outruns business management and business people must constantly refine skills for interacting. More specifically, the authors are interested in the negotiation schemata of business negotiators in the IT industry. Schemata refer here to the mental patterns that impact how people process information (Colman, 2009). Boehm, Bose, Horowitz, and Lee (1997) called for new models applicable to software development yet none have appeared beyond their Win-Win Spiral, a process level approach that does not address situational thinking, communication, nor selection and application of mental models.

The knowledge targeted in this study helps us to better understand how IT negotiators apply various schemata in business negotiation and how different factors impact on availability and choice of schemata. The specific research questions are: i) Which schemata are in use among the current generation of Japanese and Finnish negotiators in the IT industry? ii) Do Finnish and Japanese IT negotiators change their schema based on situation? iii) Do age, level in company, position of the negotiator in the team or frequency of negotiation impact availability of schemata or choice of schemata? With this knowledge, IT negotiators may be able to develop better negotiation strategies and overcome some difficulties when interacting in a global business environment. From the theory point of view, this study expands the negotiation schemata literature with specific reference to technology business. In addition, this study contributes to the IT business literature by investigating to negotiation styles in international context.

For this study, we selected negotiators working in the IT industry from Finland and Japan as these two countries are distant in almost every way, geographically, linguistically, and in the measures of widely used cultural comparison tools (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2005; Ojala, 2015; Peterson, Wood, & Smith, 2008; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012). As geographies with relatively homogenous populations, Japan and Finland are more likely to reveal variations when compared (Peltokorpi & Clausen, 2011) than locations where ideas, experiences, and personal origins mingle more freely. In addition, even though both nations are technology leaders, the industries in these countries differ significantly. For example, the Finnish software industry and its human resources are generally globalized, multilingual, and Agile management techniques are widespread (Ronkko & Peltonen, 2012) whereas the Japanese software industry has a lack of skilled generalist managers, low pervasiveness of Agile management, and difficulties to internationalize their business (Inada, 2010). Further, Japan appears to have some unique business approaches (Ueki, Ueki, Linowes, & Mroczkowski, 2011) generally and in IT specifically (Krishna, Sahay, & Walsham, 2004; Ojala & Tyrvainen, 2007), including bonding and trust practices (Choi, Souiden, & Skandrani, 2012). Because negotiation is relationship oriented (Lewicki, Hiam, & Olander, 1996), impacts and approaches in Japan may appear relatively unique to Finnish and other "western" negotiators.

The paper is organized as follows: we first discuss the theoretical background of schemata, negotiation, and negotiation in the context of IT industry. Thereafter we present the research method and the results of the survey. Finally, we present empirical findings leading to concluding thoughts.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Schemata

Schemata theory is well established in cognitive psychology. Schemata refer to "mental representations of some aspect of experience..." that help interpret information (Colman, 2009). Beamer (1995) reviews schemata and describes them, following Casmir (1985), as mental structures used to interpret information. Casmir (1985) specifically indicates that these schemata derive from the person's culture and abilities. Culture itself arises from experiences shared in time, geography, language and sharing meaning, norms, and rules though the same general experiences can create multiple cultures (Triandis & Albert, 1987). Cognitive style arises from culture at various levels including personality, family influences, professional, and broader societal influences (Kozhevnikov, Evans, & Kosslyn, 2014). Beamer (1995) further notes that schemata arise from cross cultural experiences, such as learning to bow in Tokyo. Schema can also arise from perceptions and interpretations (McMillen, 1991).

Schemata are found for not only concrete and abstract things, but also processes; these are referred to as scripts which may apply to business, negotiation, and even more specifically to gender nuanced business negotiation (Colman, 2009; Hanappi-Egger & Kauer, 2010; Taylor & Crocker, 1981) when they involve expected sequences of steps. Scripts develop from planning as well as experience (Turner, 1994). Nishida (1999) refers to script schemata as procedure schemata building on the work of Turner (1994). Specifically, Nishida's (1999) procedure schema includes not only a sequence of steps, but also contains information about the steps and expectations for counterparties. Additionally, Nishida (1999) specifies strategy schema for problem solving. If a negotiation is seen as a problem, or series of problems, to be solved, the negotiator's approach is a strategy schema that will impact their choice of actions. The concept of negotiation orientations as introduced more recently are highly personalized and variable and change with experience (Brooks & Rose, 2004), yet these do not include schema contents and schemata remain a more appropriate concept for this research.

Schemata are not a concept widely used in daily language, a typical English language user would understand words like routines or routines for processes more readily. However, kata (represented by the character [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) is a concept broadly familiar to Japanese speakers, "A kata is a routine that allows people to interact smoothly." (Alston & Takei, 2005). These authors describe kata as strongly norming scripts "...formal ways of behaving (kata) forcing conformity of behavior on everyone." Japan's kata are tantamount to schema as described in the literature cited above. Kata can be relatively rigid and formulaic such as those for business meetings or more flexible such as those for preventing loss of face by sharing blame among subordinates (Alston & Takei, 2005). Finnish uses the term toimintatapa or omaksuttu toimintatapa in a similar way.

Schemata, including kata and toimintatapa, allow business people to interact in predictable patterns thereby decreasing misunderstandings and increasing chances of successful communication. Similarly for schema, according to Beamer (1995), "Business communication is effective when schemata are closer." Conversely, mismatches may result in misunderstandings and communication as well as negotiation failure (Beamer, 1995; McMillen, 1991) and matches of mental models may improve outcomes (Van Boven & Thompson, 2003). These sources fail to consider how schemata are applied specific business contexts, though Van Boven and Thompson (2003) consider two very broad situations - distributive and integrative negotiations. If there are opportunities for matches and mismatches, considering situations may shed light on the process.

Schemata are developed from a person's construct of social reality, including the schemata for negotiation (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992). The schemata of business people from differing experiential backgrounds, for example their working lives in different cultures, companies, locations or industries, may therefore be different. Conversely, those with similar experiences, for example MBA studies, might have similar schema despite being located in different national cultures. Salacuse (1998) found variances in negotiation style by culture and occupation. His analysis employs ten dimensions, and several are reflected in the schemata employed in this research.

Negotiation

Negotiation is one kind of business process that may include a procedure or strategy schema. For the purposes of this paper, we take a general definition of business negotiation as a process of interactions in which parties define and develop relationships, solve problems and seek to make agreements or avoid detrimental ones, usually in formal situations where parties are aware of an intended deal (Benyoucef, 2010; Lewicki & Hiam, 2010; Sarkar, 2010).

As mentioned above, culture has impact on negotiation through schemata. Yet the studies referred to discuss national level culture rather than more granular levels of culture such as age, experience, and industry as attempted in this study in addition to the cultural contexts of Japan and Finland. Further, the relationships between negotiation schemata and the individual's position (Katz & Kahn, 1978) in a negotiation or managerial rank in the company remain uninvestigated. In this research report, position means one of four main jobs in a negotiation: the final decision maker, the team leader or chief negotiator, team members, and a last group of other supporters. The final decision maker may or may not be at the negotiation table, they however have final authority over approval. Thus the final decision maker could be an owner, top executive, board, or other body (Brett, Friedman, & Behfar, 2009). The lead negotiator, if not the same person as the decision maker, handles the strategy, sets the atmosphere, and directs research by allocating team members and resources (Ashcroft, 2004). Team members are generally speaking under the control of the leader and may be directed to speak as specialists or to take on other tasks (Brett et al., 2009). Other supporters may be part of the team but not directly participating in talks or they may be only briefly part of the team. Each of these four positions may take on multiple, even the same, roles (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

Managerial rank in this study report means the relative position in the organization from the top of the pyramid downward. At the top is the owning individual or group or their top agent(s) who are responsible mainly for strategic decisions. The next level is occupied by middle managers responsible for tactical decision making and resource allocation. The third level consists of first line managers who operationalize tasks and report on them. These levels are widely described in the literature (Boone & Kurtz, 2012; Cyert & March, 1992; Montana & Charnov, 2008; Robbins, DeCenzo, & Coulter, 2014). A fourth group, non-management, is included in the survey in this research. Non-management negotiators are important in business negotiations in the IT industry because these individuals may have considerable technical expertise.

Negotiation in IT industry

Although the previous studies in the field of IT have not directly focused on negotiation, several studies have highlighted its importance. In their study on software offshore outsourcing, Nahar and Kuivanen (2009) argued that negotiation forms one of the nine phases of the offshore outsourcing process. They concluded that offshore outsourcing contract negotiations between Finnish and Vietnamese partners are largely impacted by a weak legal system, corruption, and lack of transparency, in addition to common contractual issues. Currie (2000) studied the supply-side of IT outsourcing. She concluded that the rapid pace of technical change makes negotiations of outsourcing contracts difficult and in some cases there might be a need to hire external consultants to provide assistance during the negotiations process. Corbett (1994) investigated the skills needed to successfully manage IT outsourcing processes. He found that negotiation is one of the most important skills, as a manager needs an ability to work toward mutually beneficial outcomes with partners that are not under the manager's direct control. In a similar vein, Elena and Silvius (2010) found that good negotiation skills were the key capability required when developing partnerships between outsourcing partners.

Studies by Davis et al. (2006) and Abraham et al. (2006) argue that negotiation skills should receive more attention when developing personal skills and the education of new IT specialist. In their study, Davis et al. (2006) argue that IT-related contract negotiations are important part of the ClO's responsibilities. Thus, for IT workers' personal development, different negotiation techniques are important "soft skills". These skills help in networking with partners and building trust between contracting parties. In their research, Abraham et al. (2006) investigated different capabilities that senior IT executives are looking for when hiring new employees and how these capabilities could be developed in information systems (IS) curriculums. The findings indicate that IS students would greatly benefit from negotiation skills especially in the context of project management.

Altogether, IT literature emphasizes the importance of negotiation skills among IT managers. These skills are counted as important "soft skills" for operation and management of various IT related tasks. However, negotiation skills and various negotiation styles per se have received only very limited attention in the IT literature. Thus, the aim of this paper is to study the negotiation schemata of IT professionals. This helps better understand how different factors impact negotiation strategies in the IT industry. Furthermore, we will compare negotiation schemata between Japanese and Finnish IT negotiators to develop wider understanding about possible differences in negotiation styles in international context.

METHODOLOGY

This study applies standardized questionnaire survey method. The method is suitable especially in those situations where the aim is to gather data about attitudes, beliefs, and behavior (Bhattacherjee, 2012). For this study, the goal was to collect a small number of responses from IT professionals in each of the two target countries in order to test the conceptual approach of identifying schemata and seek hints about differences. Targeting this population, a survey was firstly developed based on the literature review and the authors' personal experiences in the field. Thereafter the preliminary version of the survey was completed and commented by two Finnish IT managers. Their comments were used to further develop the final survey questionnaire. In the final survey questionnaire, respondents reported their actions and observations in negotiations. This self reporting approach is shown to be valid in the work of Vetschera and Kainz (2013) who found that self-reported strategies match observed behavior in situations of preferences regarding payoff distribution. The current survey included schemata involved, or possibly involved, in business negotiation as identified and gathered from a variety of sources (see Table 1).

While managers are often considered an appropriate focus group in business negotiations, this study includes also non-managers as the focus is on position in the negotiation. Position in a negotiation does not always equate to rank in the company because non-managers may have remarkable impact on the final decisions due to their relative importance or their technical specialization.

Processing the survey, the main outreach was via LinkedIn searches. Each candidate's profile was checked to confirm long-term work in the IT industry. Approximately one hundred individuals (61 Finnish and 38 Japanese) were contacted in this way. Five additional Finnish individuals were contacted by email. Ultimately ten responses from Japanese IT industry workers were received, all male (see Table 2). One of these, number 16, was removed from the data as all possible schemata were selected for all situations, suggesting an erroneous input. While an actor may access more than one schema at the time, some are mutually exclusive such as securing the deal and moving on (number 7) versus negotiating only if there is an empathic fit (number 9). From Finland, eleven individuals from the IT industry completed surveys, all are male (see Table 3). One was removed from the data because of long term work experience within Japan. In the data analysis, bivariate analysis method was applied to investigate how two variables correlate to each other (Bhattacherjee, 2012). When analyzing the data, correlations were investigated for several pairs of variables using the MS Excel statistics package.

FINDINGS

For the first research question, which schemata are in use among the current generation of Japanese and Finnish negotiators in the IT industry, the survey confirmed that schemata 2-10 in Table 1 above are in use. Table 4 below shows how many individuals among the Japanese and Finnish respondents are employing which schemata.

Two schemata were not selected by any respondent at all: Win/lose and Play to Win. These schemata are competitive and distributive, thinking which may be less appealing to the open source collaborative culture of the IT world, especially software, where team based development work is the standard. Alternatively, the prevalence of less-competitive schemata may indicate a relatively sophisticated view of business negotiation among IT negotiators. These two schemata are discussed further in the following section.

Regarding the second question, we can argue that negotiators mostly change their schema based on situation. The survey presented three situations, a new business relationship, an existing but not close business relationship, and a close business ally. Two of the Japanese and three of the Finnish respondents out of the seventeen total respondents indicated that they do not change schema based on the three situations provided. For these five, one way of thinking is enough. Four of those five brought only one schema into play. The remaining fourteen individuals, 74% of the survey population, did evince selection of schema based on situation.

For the third research question, we examined correlations among the data using dummy values as presented in Table 5 below. Variables in Table 5 correspond to the columns in Tables 2 and 3 above as follows. The AGE variable refers to the age range of the respondent. The LEVW variable refers to the management level of the individual. The FREQ variable refers to the frequency that the respondent participated in negotiation. TRN refers to respondent's experience of negotiation training. POSIT refers to the respondent's position in negotiation. COUNT refers to the number of employees in the organization globally and thus indirectly to the size of that organization.

We found that age did not correlate with increased number of schemata as shown in Table 6 below. It would seem that years of work and life experience do not result in the individual accruing additional views of negotiation. On the other hand, level in the organization, frequency of negotiation, and position in negotiation, all correlated with the number of schemata available to that individual, as seen in Table 6 below.

As it can be observed from Figure 1 below, there is a tendency for the number of available schemata to increase with the importance of the person's position in the negotiation, from Other Supporter (low) up to Final Decision Maker (highest). Additionally, in this small sample, the Japanese business negotiators appear to have fewer schemata available to them than their Finnish counterparts.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Analysis also reveals that negotiators with lower positions in negotiation (Team Member and Other Supporter) had on average fewer schemata, about three, than those with higher positions (Lead Negotiator, Final Decision Maker). The higher players had almost six schemata available (see Figure 1). When it comes to negotiation training, Final Decision Makers and Negotiation Leaders with negotiation training had slightly more schemata at hand. However Team Members with training had slightly fewer.

DISCUSSION

The most interesting findings from the previous section and other salient items are discussed below. Because this study based on fairly small sample, the main intent of this discussion is to identify salient points for future study.

Firstly, Logrolling, schema number six in this study, was noticeably less in use among Japanese than among the Finnish negotiators studied. Logrolling, the process of offering and counteroffering incremental improvements, concessions, and recombined packages, is common in training courses and popular negotiation literature in North America and Europe. In those regions, it may be a widely held schema that comes easily to the layman's mind, a more complex version of quid pro quo, "I'll give you this if you give me that."

Secondly, Get the Deal and Move on, presented as schema number seven, was chosen by seven of the Finns and only one of the Japanese respondents. This way of thinking seeks time efficiency and is competitive towards co-workers and competitor companies that may not be directly in the negotiation, but not necessarily towards the negotiation counterparties. This schema may match with the notion that individualism is valued higher in Finland than Japan (Hofstede et al., 2005). This schema is short term in thinking; relationships and repeat business are not goals of this schema, merely saving time or gathering a quota of deals are the goals. This is an opposite, though not mutually exclusive, schema of developing an ally (number eight), which appears to be more popular among Japanese than Finnish negotiators.

Thirdly, Develop an Ally for the Long Term, number eight in this study, was more popular among Japanese than Finns but relatively common in both groups. Therefore it may be a source of common ground in Japanese-Finnish encounters. If so, parties may be able to promote it explicitly and improve the communication from the outset. This schema refers to a process for developing an ally, as opposed to completing a particular agreement or task. The negotiator takes a strategic perspective towards the relationship and the deal content. The typical collaborative nature of IT development (Whitehead, 2007) may explain the relative commonality of this schema.

Fourthly, Establish Empathic Fit is presented as the ninth schema. Only three Finnish and a mere pair of Japanese negotiators chose this schema. The literature (DeMente, 1994) and authors' experience suggests that this schema is common among Japanese business negotiators. However the data collected in this study suggest that it is neither remarkably common among the Japanese negotiators, nor restricted to Japanese business people. Against the expectations of the authors, few Japanese business people chose this and they were outnumbered, albeit only three to two, by Finns. It may be, as suggested by Choi et al. (2012), that Japanese businesses have well established relationships and do not need to undertake this step so often.

Fifthly, in this study population, Finns employed more schemata than Japanese, however the small sample size makes it unclear if this is true in the larger population of IT industry negotiators. Nonetheless, some tendencies appear for the following three schemata: i) Get the deal and move on: Four Finns included this schema, but it was not selected by any Japanese respondents. ii) Develop an ally: Four Finns identified use of this schema whereas six Japanese respondents did. This schema emphasizes a long-term alliance where the relationship is of vital importance. iii) Make offers and accept counteroffers to gain and give incrementally: Only one Japanese whereas five Finnish participants selected this schema. Other schemata were shared close to equally by Japanese and Finnish IT business negotiators, although the survey population is too small to draw clear conclusions about preference.

Finally, two schemata were not selected by any respondent at all. These were the first on the list, Win/lose, and the final choice, Play to Win. Both are highly competitive and allow little room for relationship development; indeed they are likely to sacrifice relationships in favor of tangible gains. The rejection of these two schemata suggests that Finnish and Japanese IT negotiators may not be particularly aggressive in seeking immediate distributive advantage but may be generally tuned to collaborative arrangements and mutual gains. This result could be because the industry presents a broadly collaborative culture as demonstrated in some locations, for example USA (Dionisio, Dickson, August, Dorin, & Toal, 2007; Inada, 2010; Saxenian, 1994) and one of Canada's technology hubs, Waterloo, Ontario (Spigel, 2013) or for other reasons not investigated here such as lack of training, lack of pressure due to limited resources, and so on.

These data suggest that the number of schemata a person has available to draw on does not increase simply through the general experience of living in the normal world of daily interactions and informal negotiation. Rather, it may be by dint of frequent exposure to business negotiations that negotiators increase their library of available schemata. More strikingly, with the strongest correlation, it is the higher position in the negotiation that is associated with the greatest depth of schemata. The causality nonetheless remains unclear. It may be that individuals with more schemata rise to the top, or it may be that their rise to the top is part of their process of harvesting new schemata. Future research may be able to determine the causality through modeling, surveys, and observation.

CONCLUSIONS

The aim of this study was to contribute knowledge of business negotiation schemata of IT negotiators and thence to identify avenues of further investigation on this subject. Although negotiation skills of IT managers have been highlighted in several previous studies (Abraham et al., 2006; Davis et al., 2006; Kuivanen & Nahar, 2009; Vykoukal et al., 2009), the negotiation styles per se have received very limited attention the IT literature. The findings of this study reveal that differences exist among the study population with respect to negotiation schemata, preferences for sharing of info, experience, and availability of schemata to individuals. IT negotiators apparently have some schemata at hand, but do not necessarily enjoy a broad range. There is a possibility that they might choose schemata that conflict with the schemata of their counterparts in cross-cultural situations. Indeed, they may not identify their counterparty's schema due to their own narrow range of schemata. Practical implications for IT negotiators include gaining more schemata. By extension, they should seek to hone their ability to correctly select and switch based on the context of an interaction. An important further implication for Japanese and Finnish IT practitioners is to know the schemata in use on all sides in order to avoid mismatches and thus inadvertent conflicts.

Among its limitations, the study suffers from small sample size including only male respondents. This has to be taken into the consideration when evaluating the findings of this study. That is, the present work could be improved with a larger population in order to validate, extend, and refine the findings. In addition, present study did not consider to the type of a product or software under negotiation. That is, highly customized hardware or software might require a totally different kind of negotiation process compared to the standardized hardware or software (cf. Nambisan, 2001; Ojala & Tyrvainen, 2006). We did not consider differences between deal and sales negotiations or experience gained in negotiation. Follow up studies are required to take these into consideration. For instance, qualitative case interviews with individual negotiators would shed greater light on preferences and choices about schemata in the context of the industry and specific negotiation situations. A future survey and complementary cycle of interviews might also seek to determine the metacognitive mechanism of selecting and switching schemata.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. The research has been generously funded by the Scandinavia-Japan Sasakawa Foundation and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation.

REFERENCES

Abraham, T., Beath, C., Bullen, C., Gallagher, K., & Goles, T. (2006). IT workforce trends: Implications for IS programs. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 17(1), 1147-1170.

Adair, W. L., Taylor, M. S., & Tinsley, C. H. (2009). Starting Out on the Right Foot: Negotiation Schemas When Cultures Collide. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 2(2), 138-163.

Alston, J. P., & Takei, I. (2005). Japanese Business Culture and Practices: A Guide to Twenty-first Century Japanese Business. New York, NY: iUniverse.

Ashcroft, S. (2004). Commercial negotiation skills. Industrial and Commercial Training, 36(6), 229-233.

Baber, W. W. (2015). Negotiation Practices in Japan: An update on the Bubble Era. In The Asian Conference on Business and Public Policy. ISSN: 2186-5914 2014 (pp. 87-106). Nagoya: IAFOR.

Bazerman, M. H., & Malhotra, D. (2007). Negotiation Genius. New York, NY: Bantam.

Beamer, L. (1995). A schemata model for intercultural encounters and case study: The emperor and the envoy. Journal of Business Communication, 32(2), 141-161.

Benyoucef, M. (2010). e-Negotiation Systems for e-Participation. In D. Rios Insua & S. French (Eds.), e-Democracy (Vol. 5, pp. 185-199). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices. University of South Florida, USA.

Boehm, B., Bose, P., Horowitz, E., & Lee, M. J. (1997). Software Requirements Negotiation and Renegotiation Aids: A Theory-W Based Spiral Approach 1. In Proceedings of ICSEE 95 (pp. 1-18).

Boone, L. E., & Kurtz, D.L. (2012). Contemporary Business, 15th Edition. Wiley Global Education.

Brett, J., Friedman, R., & Behfar, K. (2009). How To Manage Your Negotiating Team. Harvard Business Review 87(9), 105-109.

Brooks, B. W., & Rose, R. L. (2004). A contextual model of negotiation orientation. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(2), 125-133.

Carnevale, P. J., & Pruitt, D. G. (1992). Negotiation and Mediation. Annual Review of Psychology, 43(1), 531-582.

Casmir, F.L. (1985). Stereotypes and Schemata. In W. B. Gudykunst, L. P. Stewart, & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, Culture, and Organizational Processes (pp. 48-67). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

Choi, Y., Souiden, N., & Skandrani, H. (2012). The differential impact of trust types on inter-firm relationships: Some empirical evidences from the Japanese eyeglass industry. Asian Business & Management, 11(5), 541 -562.

Colman, A. (2009). A dictionary of Psychology (Oxford Dictionary of Psychology) (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Corbett, M. F. (1994). Outsourcing and the New It Executive A Trends Report. Information System Management, 11(4), 19-22.

Currie, W. (2000). The supply-side of IT outsourcing: the trend towards mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 30(3/4), 238-254.

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1992). Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Wiley.

Davis, G. B., Ein-dor, P., King, W. R., & Torkzadeh, R. (2006). IT Offshoring: History, Prospects and Challenges. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(11), 770-795.

DeMente, B. L. (1994). Japanese Etiquette and Ethics in Business. The Modern Language Journal (6th ed., Vol. 73). Chicago: NTC Business Books. doi:10.2307/327294

DeMente, B. L. (2004). Japan's cultural code words. Tokyo: Tuttle.

Dionisio, J. D. N., Dickson, C. L., August, S. E., Dorin, P. M., & Toal, R. (2007). An open source software culture in the undergraduate computer science curriculum. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(2), 70-74.

Elena, C. C., & Silvius, A. J. G. (2010). IT Outsourcing: A Comparison between the Romanian and the Dutch Banking Systems. Journal of International Technology and Information Management, 19(2), 1-28.

Hanappi-Egger, E., & Kauer, A. (2010). Gendered scripts: studying hidden assumptions in business contexts. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 25(6), 497-508.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, J. G., & Minkov, M. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill, New York (2nd ed.). New York , NY: McGraw-Hill.

Inada, K. (2010). Analysis of Japanese Software Business. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The taking of organizational roles. The Social Psychology of Organizations (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Kim, D. J., Agrawal, M., Jayaraman, B., & Rao, H.R. (2003). A comparison of B2B e-service solutions. Communications of the ACM, 46(12), 317-324.

Kozhevnikov, M., Evans, C., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2014). Cognitive Style as Environmentally Sensitive Individual Differences in Cognition: A Modern Synthesis and Applications in Education, Business, and Management. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 75(1), 3-33.

Krishna, S., Sahay, S., & Walsham, G. (2004). Managing cross-cultural issues in Global Software Outsourcing. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 62-66.

Kuivanen, L., & Nahar, N. (2009). Vietnam as an emerging destination for offshore outsourcing of software development for finnish companies: A conceptual perspective. PICMET: Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology, Proceedings, 1110-1123.

Lafley, A. G., & Martin, R. (2013). Playing to Win. Foreign Affairs (Vol. 73). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (2006). 3D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important Deals. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Lewicki, R., & Hiam, A. (2010). Mastering business negotiation: a working guide to making deals and resolving conflict. (Jossey-Bass, Ed.). San Francisco, CA.

Lewicki, R., Hiam, A., & Olander, K. W. (1996). Think Before You Speak: A Complete Guide to Strategic Negotiation. Wiley.

Matsuura, M., Fuller, B., Kaufman, S., Kim, D., & Baba, K. (2013). Beyond "Negotiation 2.0": Teaching Negotiation in the Multi-Stakeholder, Multi-Level, and Multi-Processes World of Public Policy. In C. Honeyman, J.R. Coben, & A.W.-M. Lee (Eds.), Educating Negotiators for a Connected World (pp. 217-245). St. Paul, MN: DRI Press.

McMillen, M. C. (1991). Causal Schemata of Middle Managers and the Implementations of a Radical Change Strategy. Case Western Reserve University.

Montana, P.J. & Charnov, B.H. (2008). Management. Barron's Educational Series.

Movius, H., Matsuura, M., Yan, J., & Kim, D. (2006). In practice tailoring the mutual gains approach for negotiations with partners in Japan. Negotiation Journal 22(4), 389-435.

Nambisan, S. 2001. Why Service Business Are Not Product Businesses. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(4), 72-80.

Nishida, H. (1999). A cognitive approach to intercultural communication based on schema theory: what are schemas? International Journal Intercultural Relations, 23(5), 753-777.

Nishiyama, K. (1999). Doing business with Japan: Successful strategies for intercultural communication. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Ojala, A. (2015). Geographic, cultural, and psychic distance to foreign markets in the context of small and new ventures. International Business Review, 24(5), 825-835.

Ojala, A., & Tyrvainen, P. (2006). Business models and market entry mode choice of small software firms. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 4(2-3), 69-81.

Ojala, A., & Tyrvainen, P. (2007). Entry Barriers of Small and Medium-Sized Software Firms in the Japanese Market. Thunderbird International Business Review, 49(6), 689-705.

Peltokorpi, V., & Clausen, L. (2011). Linguistic and cultural barriers to intercultural communication in foreign subsidiaries. Asian Business & Management, 10(4), 509-528.

Peterson, M., Wood, R., & Smith, P. (2008). Cognitive structures and processes in cross cultural management. In P. Smith, M. Peterson, & D. Thomas (Eds.), The Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management Research (pp. 15-35). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Raghu, T. S., Woo, W., Mohan, S. B., & Rao, H.R. (2008). Market reaction to patent infringement litigations in the information technology industry. Information Systems Frontiers, 10(1), 61-75.

Robbins, S. P., DeCenzo, D. A., & Coulter, M. (2014). Fundamentals of Management: Essential Concepts and Applications. Pearson Education.

Ronkko, M., & Peltonen, J. (2012). Software Industry Survey 2012. Helsinki.

Salacuse, J. (1998). Ten ways that culture affects negotiating style: Some survey results. Negotiation Journal 14(3), 221-240.

Sarkar, A. N. (2010). Navigating the rough seas of global business negotiation: reflection on cross-cultural issues and some corporate experiences. International Journal of Business Insights & Transformation, 3(2), 47-61.

Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 728. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Spigel, B. (2013). The Emergence of Regional Cultures and Practices: A Comparative Study of Canadian Software Entrepreneurship. University of Toronto.

Taylor, S., & Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E. Higgins, C. Herman, & M. Zanna (Eds.), Ontario Symposia on Personality and Social Psychology Series (Book 7). Ontario: Psychology Press.

Tinsley, C. (2001). How negotiators get to yes: Predicting the constellation of strategies used across cultures to negotiate conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 583-593.

Triandis, H. C., & Albert, R. (1987). Cross-cultural perspectives on organizational communication. In F.M. Jablin, L.L. Putnam, K.H. Roberts, & L.W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication (pp. 264-295). New York, NY: Sage.

Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2012). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Turner, R. (1994). Adaptive reasoning for real-world problems: A schema-based approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ueki, H., Ueki, M., Linowes, R., & Mroczkowski, T. (2011). A comparative study of enablers of knowledge creation in Japan and US-based firms. Asian Business & Management, 70(1), 113-132.

Van Boven, L., & Thompson, L. (2003). A Look into the Mind of the Negotiator: Mental Models in Negotiation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(4), 387-404.

Vetschera, R., & Kainz, G. (2013). Do Self-Reported Strategies Match Actual Behavior in a Social Preference Experiment? Group Decision and Negotiation, 22(5), 823-849. doi:10.1007/s 10726-012-9295-5

Vykoukal, J., Wolf, M., & Beck, R. (2009). Does Green IT Matter? Analysis of the Relationship between Green IT and Grid Technology from a Resource-Based View Perspective. In Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS) (pp. 1 -13). Hyderabad, India.

Whitehead, J. (2007). Collaboration in software engineering: A roadmap. FoSE 2007: Future of Software Engineering, 214-225.

William W. Baber Graduate School of Management Kyoto University JAPAN

Arto Ojala Department of Computer Science and Information Systems University of Jyvaskyla FINLAND
Table 1: Negotiation schemata in this study.

Schema and source                Description

1. Win/lose (Salacuse, 1998)     Distributive thinking
                                 in which each gain has a
                                 related loss and
                                 vice versa.

2. Employ a multistep
process to get                   Specific steps and phases
satisfying results               are followed which
(Lax & Sebenius,                 provide a structure
2006; Movius, Matsuura,          to the negotiation.
Yan, & Kim, 2006)

3. Explore/Solve Win/Win
Cooperate                        Integrative thinking in
(Lax & Sebenius,                 which utility is maximized
2006; Salacuse,                  for all parties possibly
1998)                            with gains beyond those
                                 initially in discussion.

4. Pitch to
absent boss (informal            Speaking through the
interviews by authors)           counterpartyto the needs and
                                 desires of their superior.
                                 Characterized by the statement,
                                 "I always propose in a way that
                                 will convince their boss."
5. Determine if
there is suitable
end to                           A reflective approach that
end business logic               seeks to understand the
in the situation                 entirety of a proposal through its
(Baber, 2015)                    greatest logical extent with
                                 consideration of suppliers, distant
                                 stakeholders, product lifecycle,
                                 relationship
                                 lifecycle and more.

6. Bargaining/Logrolling         Exchange of concessions especially
i.e. trading                     by linking and delinking issues.
incremental
concessions (Bazerman
& Malhotra, 2007)

7. Get the deal and              Prioritizes time and cost
move on (authors;                efficiency as part of the
Salacuse, 1998)                  transaction with the goal of
                                 completing and progressing, whether
                                 a deal or no deal is the outcome.


8. Secure an ally, develop the   A negotiation is a process
relationship (Baber,             for developing an ally, as
2015; Salacuse,                  opposed completing a particular
1998)                            agreement or task. The negotiator
                                 takes a strategic perspective
                                 towards the relationship and
                                 the deal content.

9. Negotiate only if the         Establish at the outset if
other party has                  there is chemistry
empathic fit with you            (simpatico feeling) among the parties
(Baber, 2015;                    sufficient to motivate trust
DeMente, 2004)                   and cooperation. This includes the
                                 Japanese feeling of an emotional
                                 connection en
                                 ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII])
                                 or wetto
                                 ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]).


10. Fairness: An expected        The negotiator expects a
sequence of                      process that seems fair.
events for determining           Note that any given process
and adjusting                    may or may not be seen
to perceived                     as fair by other parties.
fairness among the
negotiation parties
(Carnevale &
Pruitt, 1992)

11. Play to win,                 The sole goal is to gain
win for the sake of              victory over the other sides
winning (Lafley &                in some respect even if
Martin, 2013)                    loss of possible maximum
                                 gains is a result. The victory
                                 definition may include moral
                                 or egotistical issues as
                                 well as substantive
                                 issues within the negotiation.

Table 2: Japan respondents.

                               Frequency of
ID    Age      Level           negotiating     Training

 1    30-35    Head of         About           No
               Operation       monthly

 5    36-40    Senior          Very often      No
               Management

 6    51-55    1st level of    4-8 per year    Yes
               management

 7    56-60    Head of         Very often      No
               Operation

 8    30-35    1st level of    1-3 per year    No
               management

10    51-55    1st level of    4-8 per year    Yes
               management

14    56-60    Non-            4-8 per year    Yes
               Management

20    41-45    1st level of    1-3 per year    No
               management

23    46-50    1st level of    About           No
               management      monthly

                    Global
                    employee
ID   Position       count

 1   Negotiation    10
     leader

 5   Final          500
     decision
     maker

 6   Negotiation    170000
     leader

 7   Final          NA
     decision
     maker

 8   Team           300000
     member

10   Negotiation    170000
     leader

14   Team           300
     member

20   Negotiation    80
     leader

23   Negotiation    10
     leader

Table 3: Finnish respondents.

                             Frequency of
ID    Age      Level         negotiating     Training

 2    46-50    Head of       About           Yes
               Operation     monthly
 9    30-35    Non-          1-3 per year    No
               Management
11    26-30    Non-          1-3 per year    No
               Management
12    41-45    Non-          1-3 per year    Yes
               Management
13    46-50    Non-          1-3 per year    No
               Management
15    36-40    Senior        Very often      Yes
               Management
18    21-25    Non-          4-8 per year    No
               Management
21    41-45    Head of       Very often      Yes
               Operation
22    31-35    Head of       Very often      No
               Operation
24    36-40    Non-          Very often      Yes
               management

                   Global
                   employee
ID    Position     count

 2    Final        4
      decision
      maker
 9    Other        5000
      supporter
11    Other        270000
      supporter
12    Team         500
      member
13    Other        15000
      supporter
15    Final        6
      decision
      maker
18    Team         10
      member
21    Final        50
      decision
      maker
22    Final        150
      decision
      maker
24    Team         300000
      member

Table 4: Number of negotiators choosing schemata.

Schema                                  Number of      Number of
                                        Finnish        Japanese
                                        negotiators    negotiators

1. Win/lose                              0              0
2. Employ a multistep process to         8              6
get satisfying results
3. Explore/Solve Win/Win                10              7
Cooperate
4. Pitch to absent boss                  7              7
5. Determine if there is suitable        8              7
end to end business logic in the
situation
6. Bargaining/Logrolling i.e. trade      5              1
incremental concessions
7. Get the deal and move on              4              0
8. Secure an ally, develop the           4              6
relationship
9. Negotiate only if the other party     4              3
has empathic fit with you
10. Fairness: An expected sequence       5              6
of events for determining and
adjusting to perceived fairness
among the negotiation parties
11. Play to win, win for the sake of     0              0
winning

Table 5: Respondent data with dummy values.

ID    AGE    LEVW    FREQ    TRN    POSIT    COUNT

 1    3      4       3       1      3        3
 2    6      4       3       2      4        8
 5    4      3       4       1      4        6
 6    7      1       2       2      3        6
 7    8      4       4       1      4        3
 8    3      1       1       1      2        4
 9    2      0       1       1      1        4
10    7      1       2       2      3        6
11    2      0       1       1      1        2
12    5      0       1       2      2        3
13    6      0       1       1      1        5
14    6      0       2       2      2        4
15    4      3       4       2      4        8
18    1      0       2       1      2        7
20    5      1       1       1      2        5
21    5      4       4       2      4        6
22    3      4       4       1      4        7
23    6      1       3       1      3        4
24    4      0       4       2      2        5

Table 6: Correlation of age to other variables.

Correlation of Age to Number of        0.02349     No correlation
Schemata
Correlation of Workplace Level to      0.342251    Moderate
Number of Schemata                                 correlation
Correlation of Frequency of            0.415894    Strong correlation
Negotiation to Number of
Schemata
Correlation of Negotiation Position    0.525538    Strong correlation
to Number of Schemata
COPYRIGHT 2015 International Information Management Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Baber, William W.; Ojala, Arto
Publication:Journal of International Technology and Information Management
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:9JAPA
Date:Jul 1, 2015
Words:7166
Previous Article:Changing business process management in project development.
Next Article:An adaptive Neuro-fuzzy System with semi-supervised learning as an approach to improving data classification: An illustration of bad debt recovery in...
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters