Negotiations across cultures are always challenging. It is even more when negotiators from low-context cultures negotiate with negotiators from high-context cultures. Please describe the main differences in the negotiation styles of U.S. and Japanese negotiators. In doing so, please use the research conducted by the U.S. Institute for Peace, as well as the studies reported by Solomon and Quinney, Kinhide, and Cohen.

What will be an ideal response?

Respondents should first address the issue that there is not universal paradigm for negotiation, that negotiation has different meanings in other cultures, and that it has been stated that the concept itself responds to a specific context like the United States. Respondents then need to describe the characteristics of U.S. negotiators as proposed by the U.S. Institute for Peace, that negotiators in the U.S. are inclined to sit down and solve problems, that they aim to reach deals, that they negotiate with the objective of reaching agreements that satisfy both sides, that they are reluctant to negotiate with foreigners, especially those whose beliefs and behaviors go against U.S. values, and that they are sometimes skeptical to compromise because of the U.S. power position. Any of these characteristics should be followed by any of the elements suggested by Solomon and Quinney. They can also highlight the main proposition and contrast suggested by Kinhide, who states that the U.S. negotiating style is based in the belief that humans can manipulate the environment, which is in contrast to the Japanese value that sees humans adapting to the environment. Finally, they can refer to Cohen’s description that the underlying assumption in the U.S. negotiating style is rationality.