Global Success
Understanding cultural differences is vital to international dealmaking.
September 30, 2006 at 08:00 PM
8 minute read
These days a lot of U.S. companies are complaining that they can't compete with global trade in countries such as India where there is a low-cost labor force and environmental or other regulatory controls are more lax.
However, Europeans have higher labor costs, tighter environmental regulations and higher taxes than the U.S. Yet they successfully engage in trade all over the world. The biggest difference between Europe and the U.S. is that Europeans always had to export because their internal markets have always been too small for long-term growth. The advantage the Europeans have is they have far more exposure and interest in developing a deep appreciation for the culture and history of other countries. And this has helped them in business.
It is people who make or break business deals, not necessarily the product or the price. International business deals fail not so much because of external factors–such as economics or politics–but because of a lack of understanding between the two sides about cultural differences. As a result, it's no longer enough to have a hot new product that will save time, or a novel idea that could revolutionize an industry. You also need to understand the cultural values, behavior styles, negotiating techniques and business practices of the country where you are doing business.
A cultural trait that often creates problems for Americans overseas is the value we place on time management. In the U.S., time equals money. However, most non-U.S. managers do not work under the same time pressures we do. Therefore, they can make Americans feel pressured to compromise. Many U.S. firms simply don't have the patience to reach a satisfactory international deal. Non-U.S. companies are particularly clever at using this cultural distinction to their advantage. The concept that time is money is alien to most Indians.
Another potential pitfall to international negotiations is different communication styles. For example, in the U.S. we like direct “yes” or “no” answers. In many countries, if one asks a negotiator for a “yes” or “no” answer, they will often say “yes,” simply because saying “no” in their culture is impolite. But that “yes” may not really mean “yes.” Often a “yes” means only “I understand.” It is the manner in which the “yes” is stated that implies whether the answer is actually “yes” or “no.” In India, the word “no” has harsh implications.
Evasive refusals are more common and are considered more polite. For example, to avoid a particular commitment, one might respond with an “I'll try”–this is a more gentle, acceptable form of refusal. In other words, one has to read between the lines to interpret what has been said.
One of the most effective lessons I learned in terms of negotiating protective terms and conditions is the importance of first establishing a personal relationship with the other party and engendering a sense of trust in me as a person and as a goodwill ambassador for any company I might represent. I have found that despite whatever protections may be in a contract, the success of the deal depends on the personal relationships, and the trust and sense of comfort that each party has with the other. For example, a great amount of hospitality is associated with doing business in India. Tea and small talk are preludes to most business discussions.
Multicultural awareness is a vital component of any global strategy. You may know your particular industry inside and out, yet when you step off the plane in a foreign country, industry expertise is not enough. If you do not have the knowledge of foreign business practices, negotiation techniques and social customs, the odds of your successfully concluding a business/legal transaction are against you. Approaching international trade first as a student of culture and tradition and second as a company representative will go a long way in achieving your international trade objectives.
———–
Roger Marks is the former general counsel and secretary of H2O Plus. He also served as the president of the company's international divisions.
These days a lot of U.S. companies are complaining that they can't compete with global trade in countries such as India where there is a low-cost labor force and environmental or other regulatory controls are more lax.
However, Europeans have higher labor costs, tighter environmental regulations and higher taxes than the U.S. Yet they successfully engage in trade all over the world. The biggest difference between Europe and the U.S. is that Europeans always had to export because their internal markets have always been too small for long-term growth. The advantage the Europeans have is they have far more exposure and interest in developing a deep appreciation for the culture and history of other countries. And this has helped them in business.
It is people who make or break business deals, not necessarily the product or the price. International business deals fail not so much because of external factors–such as economics or politics–but because of a lack of understanding between the two sides about cultural differences. As a result, it's no longer enough to have a hot new product that will save time, or a novel idea that could revolutionize an industry. You also need to understand the cultural values, behavior styles, negotiating techniques and business practices of the country where you are doing business.
A cultural trait that often creates problems for Americans overseas is the value we place on time management. In the U.S., time equals money. However, most non-U.S. managers do not work under the same time pressures we do. Therefore, they can make Americans feel pressured to compromise. Many U.S. firms simply don't have the patience to reach a satisfactory international deal. Non-U.S. companies are particularly clever at using this cultural distinction to their advantage. The concept that time is money is alien to most Indians.
Another potential pitfall to international negotiations is different communication styles. For example, in the U.S. we like direct “yes” or “no” answers. In many countries, if one asks a negotiator for a “yes” or “no” answer, they will often say “yes,” simply because saying “no” in their culture is impolite. But that “yes” may not really mean “yes.” Often a “yes” means only “I understand.” It is the manner in which the “yes” is stated that implies whether the answer is actually “yes” or “no.” In India, the word “no” has harsh implications.
Evasive refusals are more common and are considered more polite. For example, to avoid a particular commitment, one might respond with an “I'll try”–this is a more gentle, acceptable form of refusal. In other words, one has to read between the lines to interpret what has been said.
One of the most effective lessons I learned in terms of negotiating protective terms and conditions is the importance of first establishing a personal relationship with the other party and engendering a sense of trust in me as a person and as a goodwill ambassador for any company I might represent. I have found that despite whatever protections may be in a contract, the success of the deal depends on the personal relationships, and the trust and sense of comfort that each party has with the other. For example, a great amount of hospitality is associated with doing business in India. Tea and small talk are preludes to most business discussions.
Multicultural awareness is a vital component of any global strategy. You may know your particular industry inside and out, yet when you step off the plane in a foreign country, industry expertise is not enough. If you do not have the knowledge of foreign business practices, negotiation techniques and social customs, the odds of your successfully concluding a business/legal transaction are against you. Approaching international trade first as a student of culture and tradition and second as a company representative will go a long way in achieving your international trade objectives.
———–
Roger Marks is the former general counsel and secretary of H2O Plus. He also served as the president of the company's international divisions.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHunter Biden Sues Fox, Ex-Chief Legal Officer Over Mock Trial Series
Judge Sides With McDonald's In Attorney-Client Privilege Dispute With Former Executives
4 minute readMarriott's $52M Data Breach Settlement Points to Emerging Trend
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 5A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250