A Comparative Study of Negotiation Styles of Education Managers in Australia and Indonesia

Wahdi S. A. Yudhi
Deputy Director for Programme Marketing,
Southest Asian Ministers of Education Organisation Secretariat
Mom Luang Pin Malakul Centenary Bldg, 920 Sukhumvit Road, Bangkok 10110, Thailand wyudhi@gmail.com
Marthin G. Nanere
School of Business, Latrobe University, Bendigo, 3550, Australia
m.nanere@latrobe.edu.au
Apollo Nsubuga-Kyobe
School of Business, Latrobe University, Shepparton, 3630, Australia
a.nsubuga-kyobe@latrobe.edu.au

 

A Comparative Study of Negotiation Styles of Education Managers
in Australia and Indonesia

Abstract

The paper aims to explore cultural differences and their impacts on negotiation styles between education managers in Australia and Indonesia, two countries with different cultural values, and with different degrees of cultural homogeneity. Indices have been used as a tool to explain differences. The research focuses on education managers because of their significant involvement in international business operations. Results show that not only are Indonesian and Australian cultures different, but so are their negotiation styles. Interestingly, although both cultures have been shown to be different, after the research carried out by Hofstede in the 1970s and what has been done recently, it is clear that there has been a convergence, pointing to some similarities between the cultures of both Indonesia and Australia . The main contribution of this research is twofold. Firstly, a systematic investigation of negotation style differences between two vastly different cultures or nations. Secondly, it provides practical insights to education managers and other executives who are dealing with their counterparts in Australia and Indonesia . Furthermore, managers from these two countries can understand better their differences and build on their similarities, which is necessary in the formation of partnership or strategic alliances.

Keywords: cultural diffrences, negotiation styles, education managers, strategic alliances.

managers: Individuals managers involved in the discussion of the exchange programs that include selection of students sent to study in either of the two countries.

 

Introduction

Recently there has been great interest in whether the attitudes, bahaviour, management styles and values of managers are different across cultures and nations (Husted et al., 1996; Hofstede, 2001; Robertson; 2000). Thus, an understanding of cross-cultural differences in the education sector has practical importance for managers and executive to address and to meet with their counterparts in their foreign and home working environments. This knowledge of how cultural differences affect decision-making process is important to education managers because it can be used to predict and design successful strategic alliances.

This article aims to compare cultural difference indices determined in the 1970s and in 2003. It will explore tendencies of Indonesia and Australia, and their characteristics based on these cultural difference indices. The impact of cultural differences on the negotiation styles of the two countries is explored, and insights for improving negotiation practises in Indonesia or Australia are also provided. Negotiation styles are also breifly reviewed, especially cross-cultural negotiation styles with particular attention to cross-cultural negotiation styles between Australia and Indonesia.

The rest of the article is structured as follows. First, a brief review and definition of culture, cultural differences, cross-cultural negotiations are presented. Second, methodology used is explained. Third, we present the results and findings. The last section concludes with discussions and concluding remarks.

Literature Review and Definition

Culture and Cross-Culture Negotiations

Culture as an implicit feature of social life as well as an explicit social construct has been well defined by (Geert, 1973). However, the definition of culture used in this article refers to Hofstede’s (1991) definition of culture as the collecitve programming of the mind, which distinguishes the members of one group of people from another. This culture includes systems of values and culture in a particular group or nation. Cultural values are about how things ought to be, and actually are, in a society, and culture in a particular group or nation means that different groups may respond to the same phenomena or situation differently.

This article is based on Hofstede (1991) model, in which he drew his research from 116,000 employees, both managerial and non-managerial, in IBM branches and affiliates, in fifty countries. He found that Indonesians and Australians have significant cultural differences, at least in terms of power distance and individualism/collectivism dichotomy. Australians tend to be lower in the power distance index as compared to Indonesians. Australians tend to be individualistic, in contrast to Indonesians who are collecgtivist. He did compare between different cultures across four dimensions, namely inequality in society, power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus feminity, and uncertainty avoidance. These dimensions will be further discussed in the next sections.

Sunshine (1990) and Elgstorm (1990) argue that culture has a profound impact on international negotiation. For example, language and potential understanding affect every message in interpersonal communication (Fatehi, 1996). Cohen (1991) supports the idea that culture has a strong influence on cross-cultural negotiations. He argues that cross-cultural dissonance may strongly affect the conduct and outcome of a meeting. Cross-cultural negotiations should consider aspects of the other party’s culture and history, personal relationships, different meanings of certain messages and gestures, status and cultural needs.

Low versus High Power Distance

According to Hofstede (1991), cultures with low power distance are characterised by an equality of roles, and decentralisation in these cultures is popular. In contrast, cultures with high power distance have the characteristics of an existential inequality between higher-ups and lower-downs, and centralisation is popular. With these conditions, negotiators from low power distance require less consultation with central executives. This means that there is less time to reach a decision before executing it.

Collectivist versus Individualist  

The complex issues in a negotiation may determine the size of the negotiating team. Under cross-cultural negotiation, the number of members in the negotiating team is not only based on the complexity of the negotiation issue, but cultural differences influence the size of the negotiating team as well. Negotiating teams from collectivist societies, for example, tend to be large, while teams from individualist societies tend to be smaller where even a single person represents an acceptable negotiating team. For collectivist societies, the group is perceived as a harmonious whole. People are considered very important. Thus, all members of the team need to be taken into account and treated with respect (Fatehi, 1996). In contrast, individualistic society prefers to deal individually in the negoatiating table.

Masculinity versus Femininity

According to Hofstede (1991), dominant values in masculine society are material success and progress. Money and material wealth are important. People are supposed to be assertive, ambitious and tough. They prefer competition and solve conflicts by fighting. In a feminine society, the dominant values are caring for others, and warm relationships are important. Solidarity and solving conflicts by compromise are preferred

At the negotiation table, negotiators from a masculine society are ambitious to be the winner. They seem to use a ‘win-lose’ negotiation style. Feminine societies prefer long-lasting relationships and tend to use a ‘win-win’ negotiation style.

Negotiation between people of masculine and feminine societies could run into difficulties. Ego preservation is important in a masculine society, which therefore avoids compromise, as it is a sign of weakness. Consequently, this society would face difficulties by taking a rigid position. This could lead to breakdowns in the negotiations. Negotiators from a feminine society may not be aware of the importance of the ego of masculine people. Avoiding acknowledging the ego of their contemporaries could slow the negotiation process.

Uncertainty Avoidance

Hofstede (1991) defines uncertainty avoidance as the extent to which a culture feels threatened by uncertain and ambiguous situations. Cultures with strong uncertainty avoidance avoid uncertainty, the unknown and the ambiguous. Security, formal and written rules, structure and ritual in all aspects of life are preferred. Emphasis is placed on great value on expert advice and dislike taking risks. In contrast, cultures with weak uncertainty avoidance are more likely to engage in risk-takin g b ehaviour, prefer as few rules as possible, easily accept the unusual and rely on their own common sense before expert advice (Hofstede, 1991; Samovar and Porter, 1995). Examples of strong uncertainty avoidance include such countries as Greece, Portugal, Belgium and Japan, while those of low uncertainty avoidance include Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and the United States.

The degree of uncertainty avoidance can influence negotiation in a variety of ways. Cultures which require information as a way of reducing uncertainty and ambiguity place a different emphasis on the information-gathering process than cultures which have stronger uncertainty avoidance. Foster (1992) argues that low-uncertainty avoidance cultures are significantly more conservative and more cautious in their business attitude. This implies that information in these cultures needs to be accurate before decisions are made and action taken. These cultures will spend more time and energy finding out the values of the other party, information about standard business practices, the nature of the organisations and even information about the specific people in those organisations. In contrast, strong-uncertainty avoidance cultures need less information before making decisions and taking action. Foster (1992) gives the example of the Japanese, as a strong-uncertainty avoidance culture, requesting very specific information from Americans at the negotiation table. The Japanese will also ask a large number of very specific questions.

Methodology

A modified version of the Values Survey Module 1994 was used in this study. The survey was originally created by Hofstede (1991) to identify differences between cultures in four categories, that is, Power Distance Index (PDI), Individualism (IDV), Masculinity (MAS), and Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI).

The respondents from Indonesia were sourced from participants of Diklat Kepemimpinan (Leadership Training Course) Levels IV and III, which took place at the Department of National Education’s Educational Training Centre, Sawangan, West Java, Indonesia, during March and April 2003. The participants of this Training Course consisted of Indonesian civil servants in the field of the National Department of Education. They were from elements of administration, including central and regional offices and/or universities. They came from almost all the provinces of Indonesia. Of all the the 225 participants, the questionnaire was completed by as many as 203 or 90.2%.

The respondents from Australia were from educational institutions in Australia, including administration staff as well as teaching staff. Two hundred questionnaires were mailed out. The number of responses received was excellent, at 160 or a rate of 80%.

The data was collated and analysed using SPSS. Chi-square analysis was employed to test the null hypotheses of no significant differences between negotiation styles in the two countries, Australia and Indonesia at the 5% and 10% level of significance. The results with the highest percentage became the prime selection of each side, and then the differences and similarities are explored.

Differences in negotiation styles examined were grouped into five aspects:

  • Goals in a negotiation;
  • Indications of a successful negotiation;
  • Factors contribute to the success of a negotiation;
  • Views on other party; and
  • Specific requirements to be a successful negotiator.

Results and Findings

Indonesian and Australian Culture

When observing and analysing Indonesian and Australian culture in this study, Hofstede’s theory with four dimensions of cross-culture in a society, namely power distance (PDI), individualism versus collectivism (IDV), masculinity versus femininity (MAS) and uncertainty avoidance (UAI) (Hofstede, 1991) was used. Hofstede’s research results in the 1970s demonstrated that Indonesia had index values of PDI: 78, IDV: 14, MAS: 46 and UAI: 48, while Australia had values of PDI: 36, IDV: 90, MAS: 61, and UAI: 51, respectively.

The results show that Indonesia’ s PDI index was quite high and substantially different from Australia which had a relatively low PDI. Furthermore, Indonesia’ s IDV index was relatively low, in contrast with Australia’ s IDV which was relatively high. The MAS and UAI indices for the two nations were not much different, so there was no need to pay them a lot of attention. However, there was still the need for an analysis because of the shift over time in PDI and IDV, MAS and UAI.

The difference in the PDI and IDV indices of both countries, as presented by Hofstede (see Appendix I – Indonesian and Australian differences in accordance with the PDI and IDV indices), demonstrates that both nations are quite different in their characteristics. At the same time, the insignficant difference in the MAS and UAI indices, as presented by Hofstede (see Appendix I – Indonesian and Australian differences in accordance with the MAS and UAI indices), indicates that the differences in characteristics tend to be moderate.

The results of the current study showes an interesting temporal shift. The indices for Indonesia obtained currently were PDI: 53, IDV: 38, MAS: 52, and UAI: 54. The Australian indices are PDI: 49, IDV: 64, MAS: 48, and UAI: 39. The shift can be seen on the figure below.

Figure 1: Shifts in the Cultural Dimensions of Indonesia and Australia from the 1970s-2003

 

The shift in the PDI index has led to the PDI index between the two nations becoming less different. The IDV index, although experiencing a shift, maintains a substantial difference. The MAS and UAI indices have experienced a shift, and in this case, the Indonesian and Australian positions have become opposites. Although differences are quite small, the data should be interpreted in the context of the features of countries which have a tendency towards high/low MAS and UAI indices.

Keeping in mind that on average, both countries do not have substantial differences in the four indices above, there is a tendency for both countries’ characteristics to converge. However, Indonesia still tends to have a high PDI index and so exhibits the characteristics of a country with a high PDI index. On the contrary, Australia tends to be a country with a low PDI index. Likewise, Indonesia still tends to have a low IDV index, and is therefore likely to have similar characteristics to countries with low IDV indices. In contrast, Australia is a country which tends to have a high IDV index with all of the characteristics.

Indonesia, at present, tends to have a higher MAS compared to Australia. Consequently Indonesia can be seen as having characteristics similar to countries with high MAS indices. In contrast, Australia, which has a smaller MAS index, is the opposite. Indonesia’ s UAI index is higher than that of Australia’ s. This implies that Indonesia can be compared with countries with high UAI indices. Conversely, Australia tends to have the characteristics of a country with a small UAI index.

The findings are in accordance with the theory presented by Hofstede (1991), regarding the relationships between each index, that is, there is an inverse relationship between IDV and PDI, MAS and PDI, UAI and MAS, and IDV and UAI, respectively. The characteristics of both countries in a negotiation in the following discussion, related to the four cultural differences indices, are partly taken from lists of national characteristics developed by Hofstede (1997).

Relationship between IDV and PDI

When comparing the IDV and PDI for the two countries in the 1970s and in 2003 (Figure 2), a shift was observed in Indonesia’ s indices from a combination of PDI: 78 and IDV: 14 to PDI: 53 and IDV: 38. While still in the Large Power Distance and Collectivist quadrants, it is interesting to note that in Indonesia there is a shift towards a medium-level/blended IDV and PDI index. It is evident that Indonesia still tends to have the characteristics of a Large Power Distance and Collectivist nation. Conversely, Australia still has a tendency to have a Small Power Distance and Individualism.

Figure 2: Relationship between IDV and PDI

In a negotiation, people from countries with Large Power Distance and Collectivist characteristics tend to take longer to reach a conclusion because confirmation from the central authority is required, and there is a need to maintain friendships and good relations first. Doing business takes on a secondary importance. Because they tend to have larger negotiation teams, people tend to be reluctant to be confrontational in the negotiation environment. This force people to be reluctance to say ‘no’. Negotiating team from Indonesia is an example of this characteristic.

Negotiating with Australians, who generally show Small Power Distance and Individualism, tend to be quicker and have full authority from the decision-makers. Thus, it is more direct and focused on the outcome, rather than focused on establishing friendships, and it would avoid ‘going around the bush’. Because smaller teams are preferred, people tend not to hesitate in directly confronting each other in a negotiation situation. This is evident in their having less reluctance to say ‘no’, as compared to Indonesians.

This may imply that it is necessary for negotiators to be aware of the cultural shifts, that is, that the two countries tend to become closer together, meaning that there is a tendency for the countries to converge in character. Consequently, their negotiating behaviours would also be expected to converge.

Relationship between MAS and PDI

From the combined results for MAS and PDI for Indonesia and Australia in the 1970s and in 2003 (Figure 3), Indonesia, which appeared in the Large Power Distance and Feminine quadrant with scores of PDI: 78 and MAS: 46, is shifting to the Large Power Distance and Masculine quadrants with scores in 2003 of PDI: 53 and MAS: 52. Thus, Indonesia’ s characteristics are shifting towards the characteristics of nations with these classifications. The Australians are experiencing an opposite shift. Australia was previously in the Small Power Distance and Masculine quadrant with scores of PDI: 36 and MAS: 61, and has shifted to the Small Power Distance and Feminine quadrant with scores of PDI: 49 and MAS: 48 in 2003. Thus, Australia’ s characteristics are moving towards those of nations with Small Power Distance and Feminine characteristics.

Figure 3: Relationship between MAS and PDI

In a negotiation, people from a Large Power Distance and a Masculine quadrant tend to be hierachical and are more focused on achieving a result but often with less emphasis on quality. This is in line with the main choice of Indonesia’ s negotiation goals, which tend to be “to get the most I can”, implying that they want to gain as much as possible from the other party. We can expect that when dealing with a negotiation team from Indonesia, such characteristics exist.

Australian negotiators, who show Small Power Distance and a Feminine aspect, tend not only to be less hierarchical and expect to have a smaller deal but also to gain more in terms of quality.

Figure 3 shows that there is no major difference in each party’ s position. This suggests that there are no major differences in their characteristics. The implication for negotiations is that it is necessary for negotiators to be aware of these shifts, and that these two countries may have been drawn closer together.

Relationship between UAI and MAS

When comparing UAI versus MAS (Figure 4), there is also an interesting shift. Indonesia, which appeared in the weak UAI and Feminine quadrant with scores of UAI: 48 and MAS: 46 in the 1970s, has shifted to the strong UAI and Masculine quadrant with scores of UAI: 54 and MAS: 52 in 2003. Conversely, Australia has experienced a shift from the strong UAI and Masculine quadrant with scores of UAI: 51 and MAS: 61 in the 1970s to the weak UAI and Feminine quadrant with scores of UAI: 39 and MAS: 48 in 2003. Thus, it is clear that both countries have experienced a national shift in characteristics from one quadrant to another.

Figure 4: Relationship between UAI and MAS

In a negotiation, people from strong UAI and a Masculine quadrant tend to have a lower tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity, are more bureaucratic in making decisions, and aim for big gains but often with less quality. This is in line with the main choice of Indonesian’s negotiation goals, “to get the most I can”, which implies that they want to gain as much as possible from the other party. In addition, they tend to be rigid in their adherence to regulations or laws. We can expect that dealing with a negotiating team from Indonesia could reveal those characteristics.

An Australian negotiating team, which tends to have weak UAI and a Feminine aspect, tend to exhibit more tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity, less bureaucracy in making decisions, and they aim for smaller deals but often of higher quality. They exhibit more flexibility in making decisions.

Their relative positions on the graph (Figure 4) shows no major difference, suggesting that there is no significant differences in these characteristics. The consequence for negotiations is that it is necessary for negotiators to be aware of these characterristic shifts, and that the two countries are bound to become closer together.

Relationship between IDV and UAI

The relationship between IDV and UAI in Figure 5 shows that Indonesia has shifted from the weak UAI and Collectivist quadrant to the strong UAI and Collectivist quadrant with scores of UAI: 54 and IDV: 38 in 2003 after recording UAI: 48 and IDV: 14 in the 1970s. Australia has experienced a change from the strong UAI and Individualist quadrant with scores of UAI: 51 and IDV: 90 in the 1970s, to the weak UAI and Individualist quadrant with scores of UAI: 39 and IDV: 64 in 2003. It is necessary to note that although there are changes in their positions, and they are still relatively distant. However, the two countries are becoming closer together.

Figure 5: Relationship between IDV and UAI

In a negotiation situation, people with strong UAI and Collectivist characteristics tend to have lower tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity, are more bureaucratic in making decisions, and have more people on their negotiating team. They tend to be rigid in adhering to regulations or laws and tend to take more time as they establish friendly relationshhips before doing business. We can expect that dealing with a negotiating team from Indonesia will demonstrate these characteristics.

Negotiating with Australians, who have weaker UAI and Individualist characteristics, reveals more tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity, and less bureaucracy in making decisions, leading to quicker decision-making.

Again, negotiators need to be aware of the national characteristics according to these groupings. It is also important to note that although the fact that the changes noted in their positions on the graph (Figure 5) show they are still relatively distant, the two countries are actually converging.

The above discussions show that while the two countries are still culturally different, their indices are converging. Therefore, the negotiator, apart from observing the characteristics of both countries in accordance with each index and quadrant, needs to be aware of this trend of convergence.

Indonesian and Australian Negotiation Styles

The analysis of negotiation styles between Indonesia and Australia is the first study to be conducted, and therefore does not have a baseline for comparison as in the cultural

differences analysis. Differences between the parties’ negotiation goals were identified. These include indications of success in a negotiation, factors that support the success of a negotiation, views of the other side, special guidelines for successful negotiators, and important factors for obtaining successful results in a negotiation.

Negotiation Goal

Chi-square analysis shows that there were six significant differences and one less significant difference between Indonesian and Australian negotiation goals. Table 1 shows the percentage analysis of primary selections, uncommon primary selections and secondary selections.

Table 1: Negotiation Goal, Percentage Analysis

 

Indonesian

Australian

Primary selections

- To achieve an agreement

- To achieve a set of outcomes

- To establish a relationship

- To achieve an agreement

- To achieve a set of outcomes

- To establish a relationship

 

Uncommon primary selections

- To get the most I can

- To make sure both sides are satisfied with the outcome

Secondary selections

- To make sure that both sides are satisfied with the outcome

- To transfer knowledge

- To make profit

 

- To transfer knowledge

- To make profit

- To get the most I can

 

Once each party is aware that they have common choices, which are also their priorities, their negotiations have the potential to be more successful. Furthermore, if both parties were to take into account the other party’ s priorities, which are different from their own, there is additional potential for an improved process and outcome. For example, the Australian party should take into account that the Indonesian party has another priority, which is ‘to get the most I can’.

Indications of a Successful Negotiation

When it came to negotiation success indicators, there were six significant differences and two less significant differences between those of the Indonesian side and the Australian side. Table 2 shows the percentage analysis of primary selections, uncommon primary selections and secondary selections of indications of a successful negotiation.

Table 2: Indications of a Successful Negotiation, Percentage Analysis

 

Indonesian

Australian

Primary selections

- Achieving the desired target

- Good relationships between both sides

 

- Achieving the desired target

- Good relationships between both sides

 

Uncommon primary selections

- Signing the agreement

 

- Successfully implementing the project’

 

Secondary selections

- Happiness of both parties

- Customer satisfaction

- Successfully implementing the project

- Customer satisfaction

- Signing the agreement

- Happiness of both sides

- Securing the order

- More business

 

 

If both sides were aware that they have common primary choices or priorities, their negotiations are likely to be more successful. In addition, if each party takes into account of the other party’ s differing priorities, this will enhance understanding and have the potential to further improve negotiations and outcomes. For example, the Indonesian party should be aware that Australian priorities include ‘successfully implementing the projects’ and ‘customer satisfaction’.

Factors Contributing to the Success of a Negotiation

With respect to factors that suport the success of a negotiation, there were 19 significant differences and one less significant difference between the Indonesian side and the Australian side. Table 3 shows the percentage analysis of primary selections, uncommon primary selections and secondary selections of factors contributing to the success of a negotiation.

Table 3: Factors Contributing to the Success of a Negotiation, Percentage Analysis

 

Indonesian

Australian

Primary selections

- Clear understanding of your goals

- Both parties are satisfied with the outcome

- The agreement is carried out

- Having trust

- Adequate preparation

- Good relations

 

- Clear understanding of your goals

- Both parties are satisfied with the outcome

- The agreement is carried out

- Having trust

- Adequate preparation

- Good relations

 

Uncommon primary selections

- An agreement is signed

- An agreement is reached rapidly

- I am satisfied with the outcome

 

- Understanding other’s culture

- Listening to others’ arguments and comments

- Understanding the other party’s strategies and tactics

 

Secondary selections

- Having proper resources

- Listening to others’ arguments and comments

- Understanding the other party’s strategies and tactics

- Flexibility with the target

- Being patient

- Achievement of a benefit

- Understanding others’ culture

- Sharing common interests and languages

- Body language

- Being humorous

 

- I am satisfied with the outcome

- Achievement of a benefit

- Flexibility with the target

- Being patient

- Having proper resources

- An agreement is signed

- Body language

- Being humourous

- Sharing common interests and languages

- Sharing personal liking

- An agreement is reached rapidly

Both sides, Indonesia and Australia, will have more chance for success in a negotiation if they take into account that they have common primary selections of factors that contribute to the success of negotiation. The success of their negotiations could also be enhanced by an awareness of the other party’s priorities, especially those which differ, such as ‘a clear understanding of the goals of the negotiation’ for Indonesia , and ‘adequate preparation’ for Australia .

Views on Other Party

With respect to views of the other party, there were 14 significant differences, five less significant differences, and one insignificant difference between the selections of the Indonesian side and the Australian side. There is no common primary selection in the precentage analysis. Table 4 shows the percentage analysis of uncommon primary selections and secondary selections of Views on other Party.

Table 4: Views on Other Party, Percentage Analysis

 

Indonesian

Australian

Uncommon primary selections

- Cooperate to achieve the desired result

- Professional

- Well trained and skilled

 

- Cordial

- Friendly

- Patient

 

Secondary selections

- Have proper experience

- Have a better understanding of future cooperation

- Secure new resources

- Direct and to the point

- Friendly

- Cordial

- Unhurried

- Able to adjust quickly

- Wanting to have immediate return

- Patient

- Soft/flexible

- Humorous

- Inflexible towards the content of an agreement

- Indifference to keeping appointments

- Do not appear to think about the future of the relationship

- Lack of ability in communication with other languages

- Cannot be truste

 

- Humorous

- Cooperate to achieve the desired result

- Unhurried

- Professional

- Have proper experience

- Wanting to have immediate return

- Have a better understanding of future cooperation

- Well-trained and skilled

- Do not appear to think about the future of the relationship

- Soft/flexible

- Direct and to the point

- Secure new resources

- Indifference to keeping appointments

- Inflexible towards the content of an agreement

- Able to adjust quickly

- Lack of ability in communication with other languages

- Cannot be trusted

 

As discussed above for other characteristics, both parties would enhance the negotiation processes and outcomes by being aware of their own and the other party’ s perceptions of the other side. The negative views of either party cannot be denied. To overcome the negative views as well as to heighten the positive views, it is suggested that each party ensure the other party of their positive intentions in the negotiation. These issues could support the success of negotiations.

Specific Requirements to be a Successful Negotiator

With regard to the specific requirements for a successful negotiator, there were 13 significant differences, and one insignificant difference between the selections of the Indonesian side and the Australian side. Table 5 shows the percentage analysis of primary selections, uncommon primary selections and secondary selections of specific requirements to be a successful negotiator.

Table 5. Specific Requirements to be a Successful Negotiator, Percentage Analysis

 

Indonesian

Australian

Primary selections

- Patient’ and ‘Friendly

 

- Patient’ and ‘Friendly

 

Uncommon primary selections

- Legal aspects

- Tough

- Soft/Flexible

 

- Cordial

- Unhurried

- Need variety of social approaches

 

Secondary selections

- Cordial

- Need variety of social approaches

- Unhurried

- Strong

- Do not always come to the point

- Establishing business deals more quickly

- Direct and to the point

- Humorous

- Longer time

- Soft/flexible

- Legal aspects

- Direct and to the point

- Humorous

- Strong

- Longer time

- Do not always come to the point

- Establishing business deals more quickly

- tough

 

Based on the percentage analysis, there are two similarities in common primary selections. These similarities could contribute to the success of a negotiation, because each party knows that the other party will not be in a hurry nor behave in an unfriendly fashion. To further support the success of a negotiation, each party should be aware of other party’s differing priorities. For example, the Indonesian side should be aware that the Australian party places a priority on being ‘cordial’, ‘unhurried’, and ‘need variety of social approaches’, while the Australian side should be aware that the Indonesian side’s priorities include ‘legal aspects’, ‘tough’ and ‘soft/flexible’.

Important Factors in Determining the Successful Outcome of a Negotiation

Among the important factors in determining the successful outcome of a negotiation, there were 16 significant differences, and one insignificant difference between the Indonesian and the Australian sides. Table 6 shows the percentage analysis of primary selections, uncommon primary selections and secondary selections of important factors in determining the successful outcome of a negotiation.

Table 6. Important Factors in Determining the Successful Outcome of a Negotiation, Percentage Analysis

 

Indonesian

Australian

Primary selections

- Willing to cooperate

- Being patient

- Being Polite

- Being flexible

 

- Willing to cooperate

- Being patient

- Being Polite

- Being flexible

Uncommon primary selections

- Finalising agreements clearly and definitely

- Being fair

 

- Paying attention to the other party’s needs

- Listening carefully

 

Secondary selections

- Listening carefully

- Paying attention to the other party’s needs

- Gathering as much information as possible on the other party’s position

- Being tough

- Asking questions

- Developing personal relationships with the other party

- Making few concessions

- Starting with very high demands

- Preventing the other party from learning about your position

- Having power

- Using appropriate threats when necessary

- Being persistant

 

- Finalising agreements clearly and definitely

- Being fair

- Asking questions

- Gathering as much information as possible on the other party’s position

- Developing personal relationships with the other party

- Being persistant

- Having power

- Preventing the other party from learning about your position

- Using appropriate threats when necessary

- Making few concessions

- Starting with very high demands

- Being tough

 

Each party should take into account these similarities in their common primary selections as well as their different priorities. This awareness will enhance the negotiation process and the outcomes.

Discussions

It is clear from the results and findings that there are both significant differences and similarities between the two countries. Each side should explicitly review those differences and similarities before negotiations take place, and remain consciously aware of the convergence of charcteristics between the two countries.

It is interesting to observe the change of paradigms regarding the goals and success of a negotiation. Several researchers have stated that the success of a negotiation for Western nations rests on an agreement or signing of an agreement. Countries with a Western tradition, like Australia, do not hold a monopoly on this. This research identifies that Indonesia, as an Asian nation, also has the goal of reaching an agreement. Conversely, a good relationship, which was suggested as being the monopoly of Asian nations, is identified as a choice of a Western-oriented nation like Australia .

In addition, there are several consistent elements present in negotiation goals, indications of the success of a negotiation, factors that support the success of a negotiation, views of the other side, special guidelines for becoming a successful negotiator, and important factors for obtaining successful results in a negotiation. For example, in the negotiation goals, elements of reaching an agreement and establishing a relationship can be found. In the indications of a successful negotiation, the similarities can also be found, that is, achieving the desired target and returning again to a good relationship. Among the factors that are seen to support the success of a negotiation, we can see the existence of an agreement and good relations.

As indicated before, Indonesians tend to have large PDI, are collectivist, have a strong UAI and a more Masculine aspect. In a negotiation, the people tend to take longer to reach a decision, tend be in a larger team, and aim to establish friendly relations first before doing business. They tend to have lower tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity, are more bureaucratic in decision-making, and aim for a big deal? even if it is of a lesser quality. These characteristics are in line with the characteristics of the negotiating style of Indonesians, who have a desire to have a good relationship with the other party, tend to be more focused on legal aspects, and are tough.

When negotiating with Australians, who exhibit a Small Power Distance Index, Individualism, weak UAI and are more Feminine, agreements tend to be reached quicker. They prefer to have a smaller team, give less attention to creating friendships, tend to be more tolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity, are less bureaucratic in making a decision, and aim for smaller and high-quality deals.

The willingness to establish a relationship with the other party is not in line with the characteristics above which give less attention to creating friendships. The difference could be explained by the fact that Australia is currently in the posisition of knowing more about Indonesia than vice versa. The rest of the characteristics taken from the questionnaire relating to negotiation style shows that Australians exhibit more knowledge and understanding of Indonesian culture. This can be seen in their choices of the factors for successful negotiation, in which Australians are willing to understand the other party’s culture, be cordial, unhurried, and need to apply a variety of social approaches.

Keep in mind that the old adage, ‘when in Rome, do as the Romans do’, is not appropriate for cross-cultural negotiation. The understanding of the other culture does not mean changing ourselves to be other cultural values. Instead, adaptation to other cultures is required in attempting to get successful negotiations. Weiss (1994) proposes the adaptation issue on his possible culturally responsive strategies, the choice of which depends on the degree of familiarity the negotiator has with the counterpart’s culture, and conversely, the degree of familiarity the counterpart has with the negotiator’s culture. The appropriate level of adaptation becomes a function of two variables. This is shown in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5: Culturally Responsive Strategies and their Feasibility

Weiss 1994, p. 54

[Brackets indicate a joint strategy, which requires deliberate consultation with counterpart. At each level of familiarity, a negotiator can consider feasible the strategies designated at that level and any lower level]

Source: Weiss 1994, p. 54

To relate with theories of cross-cultural negotiations, there was a matrix on the impact of culture on a negotiation that has been developed by Salacuse (1998). He configured the impact of culture on a negotiation as summarised in Table 7 below.

Table 7: The Impact of Culture on a Negotiation

Negotiation Factors

 

Range of Cultural Responses

 

 

 

Goal

 

Contract <---> Relationship

Attitudes

 

Win/Lose <---> Win/Win

Personal Styles

 

Informal <---> Formal

Communications

 

Direct <---> Indirect

Time Sensitivity

 

High <---> Low

Emotionalism

 

High <---> Low

Agreement Form

 

Specific <---> General

Agreement Building

 

Bottom Up <---> Top Down

Team Organisation

 

One Leader <---> Consensus

Risk Taking

 

High <---> Low

Source: Salacuse 1998, p. 223

In this article the goals of each party were signing a contract and at the same time, maintaining their relationships. The attitudes of the negotiatiors tend to favour win-win solutions. This can be seen in their desire to have satisfaction in their negotiations. Personal style can be seen indirectly from their cultural differences. Indonesians tend to be formal while Australians tend to be informal. These formal and informal personal styles can be seen from characteristics of the PDI, whereby high PDI indicates a formal style, while low PDI indicates an informal style.

Based on the list of characteristics from the IDV index, the communication style of Indonesians tends to be indirect (high-context communication) as a result of their tendency towards collectivist in their IDV. Australians tend to be direct in their communication style (low-context communication). In terms of time, Indonesians tend to be slower, as they tend to be more bureaucratic in making decission than Australians do.

As well as having an indirect communication culture, Indonesians tend to have low emotionalism factors, meaning that they tend to hide their feelings. Australians, on the other hand, tend to be more expressive. In term of an agreement, there are no indications in the research as to whether each party needs to have general or specific agreements, and whether they tend to follow bottom up or top down processes.

Indonesian negotiation teams tend to be larger, in line with their collectivist characteristics. Australians, with a tendency to be individualist, tend to have a smaller number of members in their team. Risk taking factors for both countries are not significantly different. However, Indonesia tends to be high in risk taking, in line with their high UAI index, while Australia, having a lower UAI, tends to be lower in risk taking.

Based on the figure of the impact of cultures on negotiations designed by Salacuse, the impact of Indonesia’ s and Australia’ s cultures on their negotiations were adjusted and can be be seen on Table 8 below.

Table 8: The Impact of Culture on Negotiation: Indonesia and Australia

Negotiation Factors

Cultural Responses

 

Indonesia <---> Australia

Goal

Contract and Relationship

Attitudes

Tend to be Win/Win

Personal Styles

Formal <---> Informal

Communications

Indirect <---> Direct

Time Sensitivity

Low <---> High

Emotionalism

Low <---> High

Agreement Form

Not available

Agreement Building

Top Down <---> Bottom Up

Team Organisation

Consensus <---> One Leader

Risk Taking

High <---> Low

Since there are no indications relating to the tendency of either party to be either general or specific in the negotiation factor, there is a room for future research to further explore this factor.

Using Salacuse indicators, Smith (2000) explored the impact of culture on negotiations among Australian negotiation practitioners and their counterparts overseas by in-depth interviews. The findings showed the impact of cultures on their negotiations. However, he did not limit the Australian negotiators’ counterparts to Indonesians only. To lend support to the research, it will be useful to carry out interviews with both Indonesian and Australian negotiators.

Concluding Remarks

From the findings and discussion, it can be concluded that Indonesian and Australian cultures are different. Thus, their negotiation styles differ. It is interesting to note that although both cultures have certainly been proven to be different, after the research carried out by Hofstede in the 1970s and by the Authors, it is clear that there is a shift which points to similarities in the cultures of both Indonesia and Australia .

The insights gained from this study can be used to promote an understanding of the characteristics of the two nations. These insights are important for both negotiating parties because they can assist them in learning their counterparts’ characteristics even before they face each other. With these insights, each party can make efforts to avoid undesirable behaviour and expect successful negotiations. The information generated in this study can also be used by a third party who wishes to have successful communications with the two nations.

The results of this study can be used by other coutries that have similar cultures. For example, Hofstede’ s (1997, page 54) survey in the 1970s showed that Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines had low IDV and high PDI indices, like Indonesia. Therefore, they are expected to show some characteristics similar to Indonesia’ s. In the same research, Canada, USA, and New Zealand were grouped with Australia. These countries could share many similar characteristics. Besides these two, other illustrations were given by Hofstede (1997, page 87, 99, and 123) to show the existence of groups having similar cultural characteristics. However, over a 30 year period, there is no guarantee that the characteristics of these countries will remain the same, as evidenced by Indonesia’ s and Australia’ s cultural shifts. If those other countries have a similar tendency to change like Indonesia and Australia, then we can predict that they will show many cultural similarities by now.

The results of the study are practically relevant to the current situation. As Indonesia and Australia are engaged in global industry and trade, they need proper negotiations for international trade. The difficulties in negotiation between Indonesia and Australia can be avoided by having a better cultural understanding of each other. This study is proved to be useful as it provides the knowledge-base for understanding the cultural similarities and differences between the two nations.

Through understanding the differences and characteristics of their cultures and negotiation styles, it is hoped that Indonesia and Australia will be better prepared for holding negotiations. Thus, their negotiations are likely to be more successful. Given the importance of international business negotiations, especially between the two countries, today and in the future, the greater understanding resulting from this study is valuable to negotiation practitioners as well as academics.

Appendix I

National Characteristics of Power Distance Index (PDI), Individualism Index (IDV), Masculinity Index (MAS) and Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)

Indonesia, which tends towards a high PDI, has characteristics in the General norm, family, school, and workplace as follows (Hofstede (1997, p. 37 and 43)):

  • Inequalities among people are both expected and desired
  • Less powerful people should be dependent on the more powerful; in practice, less powerful people are polarised between dependence and counter-dependence
  • Parents teach children obedience
  • Children treat parents with respect
  • Teachers are expected to take all initiatives in class
  • Teachers are gurus who transfer personal wisdom
  • Students treat teachers with respect
  • Both more and less educated persons show almost equally authoritarian values
  • Hierarchy in organisations reflects the existential inequality between higher-ups and lower-downs
  • Centralisation is popular
  • Wide salary range between top and bottom of organisation
  • Subordinates expect to be told what to do
  • The ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat or good father
  • Privileges and status symbols for managers are both expected and popular

While in Politics and ideas, the characteristics are as follows:

  • Might prevails over right: whoever holds the power is right and good
  • Skills, wealth, power, and status should go together
  • The middle class is small
  • The powerful have privileges
  • Powerful people try to look as impressive as possible
  • Power is based on family or friends, charisma, and ability to use force
  • The way to change a political system is by changing the people at the top (revolution)
  • Domestic political conflicts frequently lead to violence
  • Autocratic or oligarchic governments based on co-optation
  • Political spectrum, if allowed to be manifested, shows weak center and strong wings
  • Large income differentials in society, further increased by the tax system
  • Prevailing religions and philosophical systems stress hierarchy and stratification
  • Prevailing political ideologies stress and practice power struggle
  • Native management theories focus on role of managers

Australia , which tends towards a low PDI, has characteristics in the General norm, family, school, and workplace as follows:

  • Inequalities among people should be minimised
  • There should be, and there is to some extent, interdependence between less and more powerful people
  • Parents treat children as equals
  • Children treat parents as equals
  • Teachers expect initiatives from students in class
  • Teachers are experts who transfer impersonal truths
  • Students treat teachers as equals
  • More educated persons hold less authoritarian values than less educated persons
  • Hierarchy in organisations means an inequality of roles, established for convenience
  • Decentralisation is popular
  • Narrow salary range between top and bottom of organisation
  • Subordinates expect to be consulted
  • The ideal boss is a resourceful democrat
  • Privileges and status symbols are frowned upon

While in Politics and ideas, the characteristics are as follows:

  • The use of power should be legitimate and is subject to criteria of good and evil
  • Skills, wealth, power and status need not go together
  • The middle class is large
  • All should have equal rights
  • Powerful people try to look less powerful than they are
  • Power is based on formal position, expertise, and ability to give rewards
  • The way to change a political system is by changing the rules (evolution)
  • The use of violence in domestic politics is rare
  • Pluralist governments based on outcome of majority votes
  • Political spectrum shows strong center and weak right and left wings
  • Small income differentials in society, further reduced by the tax system
  • Prevailing religions and philosophical systems stress equality
  • Prevailing political ideologies stress and practice power sharing
  • Native management theories focus on role of employees

Indonesia, which leans towards a low IDV or Collectivist, has the following characteristics in General norm, family, school, and work place( Hofstede (1997 p. 67 and 73)):

  • People are born into extended families or other ingroups which continue to protect them in exchange for loyalty
  • Identity is based in the social network to which one belongs
  • Children learn to think in terms of ‘we’
  • Harmony should always be maintained and direct confrontations avoided
  • High-context communication
  • Trespassing leads to shame and loss of face for self and group
  • Purpose of education is learning how to do
  • Diplomas provide entry to higher status groups
  • Relationship employer-employee is perceived in moral terms, like a family link
  • Hiring and promotion decisions take employees’ ingroup into account
  • Management is management of groups
  • Relationship prevails over task

While in Politics and ideas, the characteristics are as follows:

  • Collective interests prevail over individual interests
  • Private life is invaded by group(s)
  • Opinions are predetermined by group membership
  • Laws and rights differ by group
  • Lower per capita GNP
  • Dominant role of the state in the economic system
  • Economy based on collective interests
  • Political power exercised by interest groups
  • Press controlled by the state
  • Imported economic theories largely irrelevant because unable to deal with collective and particularist interests
  • Ideologies of equality prevail over ideologies of individual freedom
  • Harmony and consensus in society are ultimate goals

Australia, which has a high IDV score, or tends to be characterised as Individualist, have the following characteristics in the General norm, family, school, and work place:

  • Everyone grows up to look after him/herself and his/her immediate (nuclear) family only
  • Identity is based in the individual
  • Children learn to think in terms of ‘I’
  • Speaking one’ s mind is a characteristic of an honest person
  • Low-context communication
  • Trespassing leads to guilt and loss of self-respect
  • Purpose of education is learning how to learn
  • Diplomas increase economic worth and/or self-respect
  • Relationship employer-employee is a contract supposed to be based on mutual advantage
  • Hiring and promotion decisions are supposed to be based on skills and rules only
  • Management is management of individuals
  • Task prevails over relationship

While in Politics and ideas, the characteristics tend to be as follows:

  • Individual interests prevail over collective interests
  • Everyone has a right to privacy
  • Everyone is expected to have a private opinion
  • Laws and rights are supposed to be the same for all
  • High per capita GNP
  • Restrained role of the state in the economic system
  • Economy based on individual interests
  • Political power exercised by voters
  • Press freedom
  • Native economic theories based on pursuit of individual self-interests
  • Ideologies of individual freedom prevail over ideologies of equality
  • Self-actualisation by every individual is an ultimate goal

The national characteristics of High and Low MAS are conveyed by Hofstede and are cited here to explain the attributes of Indonesia , which leans towards a High MAS in General norm, family, school and work place
(Hofstede (1997 p. 96 and 103)):

  • Dominant values in society are material success and progress
  • Money and things are important
  • Men are supposed to be assertive, ambitious, and tough
  • Women are supposed to be tender and to take care of relationships
  • In the family, fathers deal with facts and mothers with feelings
  • Girls cry, boys don’t; boys should fight back when attacked, girls shouldn’ t fight
  • Sympathy for the strong
  • Best student is the norm
  • Failing in school is a disaster
  • Brilliance in teachers appreciated
  • Boys and girls study different subjects
  • Live in order to work
  • Managers expected to be decisive and assertive
  • Stress on equity, competition among colleagues, and performance
  • Resolution of conflicts by fighting them out

While in Politics and ideas, the characteristics tend to be as follows:

  • Performance society ideal
  • The strong should be supported
  • Corrective society
  • Big and fast are beautiful
  • Maintenance of economic growth should have highest priority
  • Government spends relatively small proportion of budget on development assistance to poor countries
  • Government spends relatively large proportion of budget on armaments
  • International conflicts should be resolved by a show of strength or by fighting
  • A relatively small number of women in elected political positions
  • Dominant religions stress the male prerogative
  • Women’ s liberation means that women will be admitted to positions hitherto only occupied by men

Australia, which leans towards a Feminine or low MAS tends to have the following characteristics in General norm, family, school and workplace:

  • Dominant values in society are caring for others and preservation
  • People and warm relationships are important
  • Everybody is supposed to be modest
  • Both men and women are allowed to be tender and to be concerned with relationships
  • In the family, both fathers and mothers deal with facts and feelings
  • Both boys and girls are allowed to cry but neither should fight
  • Sympathy for the weak
  • Average student is the norm
  • Failing in school is a minor accident
  • Friendliness in teachers appreciated
  • Boys and girls study same subjects
  • Work in order to live
  • Managers use intuition and strive for consensus
  • Stress on equality, solidarity, and quality of work life
  • Resolution of conflicts by compromise and negotiation

In Politics and ideas, Australia has a tendency towards characteristics as follows:

  • Welfare society ideal
  • The needy should be helped
  • Permissive society
  • Small and slow are beautiful
  • Preservation of the environment should have highest priority
  • Government spends relatively large proportion of budget on development assistance to poor countries
  • Government spends relatively small proportion of budget on armaments
  • International conflicts should be resolved by negotiation and compromise
  • A relatively large number of women in elected political positions
  • Dominant religions stress the complementarity of the sexes
  • Women’ s liberation means that men and women should take equal shares both at home and at work

Hofstede also divulges the national characteristics for High and Low UAI(Hofstede (1997 p. 125 and 134)) Indonesia, which leans towards a High UAI, tends to be classified in General norm, family, school and workplace, as follows:

  • The uncertainty inherent in life is felt as a continuous threat which must be fought
  • High stress; subjective feeling of anxiety
  • Aggression and emotions may at proper times and places be ventilated
  • Acceptance of familiar risks; fear of ambiguous situations and of unfamiliar risks
  • Tight rules for children on what is dirty and taboo
  • What is different, is dangerous
  • Students comfortable in structured learning situations and concerned with the right answers
  • Teachers supposed to have all the answers
  • Emotional need for rules, even if these will never work
  • Time is money
  • Emotional need to be busy; inner urge to work hard
  • Precision and punctuality come naturally
  • Suppression of deviant ideas and behavior; resistance to innovation
  • Motivation by security and esteem or belongingness

While attributes in Politics and ideas tend to be as follows:

  • Many and precise laws and rules
  • If rules cannot be respected, we are sinners and should repent
  • Citizen incompetence versus authorities
  • Citizen protest should be repressed
  • Citizens negative towards institutions
  • Civil servants negative towards political process
  • Conservatism, extremism, law and order
  • Negative attitudes towards young people
  • Nationalism, xenophobia, repression of minorities
  • Belief in experts and specialisation
  • Many doctors, few nurses
  • There is only one Truth and we have it
  • Religious, political, and ideological fundamentalism and intolerance
  • In philosophy and science, tendency towards grand theories
  • Scientific opponents cannot be personal friends

Australia, which leans towards a Low UAI, has the following attributes in General norm, family, school and work place:

  • Uncertainty is a normal feature of life and each day is accepted as it comes
  • Low stress; subjective feeling of well-being
  • Aggression and emotions should not be shown
  • Comfortable in ambiguous situations and with unfamiliar risks
  • Lenient rules for children on what is dirty and taboo
  • What is different, is curious
  • Students comfortable with open-ended learning situations and concerned with good discussions
  • Teachers may say ‘I don’t know’
  • There should not be more rules than is strictly necessary
  • Time is a framework for orientation
  • Comfortable feeling when lazy; hard-working only when needed
  • Precision and punctuality have to be learned
  • Tolerance of deviant and innovative ideas and behavior
  • Motivation by achievement and esteem or belongingness

While in Politics and ideas, there is a tendency to have the following attributes:

  • Few and general laws and rules
  • If rules cannot be respected, they should be changed
  • Citizen competence versus authorities
  • Citizen protest acceptable
  • Citizens positive towards institutions
  • Civil servants positive towards political process
  • Tolerance, moderation
  • Positive attitudes towards young people
  • Regionalism, internationalism, attempts at integration of minorities
  • Belief in generalists and common sense
  • Many nurses, few doctors
  • One group’ s truth should not be imposed on others
  • Human rights: nobody should be persecuted for their beliefs
  • In philosophy and science, tendency towards relativism and empiricism
  • Scientific opponents can be personal friends

References

Cohen, Raymond. (1991). Negotiating Across Cultures: Communication Obstacles in International Diplomacy. Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Elgstorm, Ole. (1990). “ Norms, Culture and Cognitive Pattern in Foreign Aid Negotiations”, Negotiations Journal. 6(2), p.147-160.

Fatehi, Kamal. (1996). International Management: A Cross Cultural and Functional Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Hofstede, Geert. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, 2 nd ed., Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Hofstede, Geert. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, Geert. (1997). Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind, Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. Revised ed. New York: Mc Graw-Hill.  

Husted, B., Dozier, J., McMahon, J. and Katten, M. (1996). “The impact of cross-national carriers of business ethics on attitudes about questionable practices and form of moral reasoning”, Journal of International Business Studies, 27(2):391-411.

Robertson, C.J. (2000). “The global dispersion of Chinese values: a three-country study of Confucion Dynamism”, Management International Review, 40(3):253-268.

Salacuse, Jeswald W. (1998). "Ten ways that culture affects negotiating style: Some survey results", Negotiation Journal, (July), 221-240.

Smith, Max. (2000). International business negotiations: a comparison of theory with the perceptions of Australian practitioners. Hong Kong: Academy of Marketing Science.

Sunshine, Russell B. (1990). Negotiating for International Development: A Practitioner’s Handbook. Dordrecht, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Weiss, Stephen E. (1994). “Negotiating with “Romans” – Part 1, Sloan Management Review, 35(3): 85-99.

Wright, Lorna L. (1990). Cross-Cultural Project Negotiations in the Consulting Engineering Industry: A Study of Canadian-Indonesian Negotiations. Ph.D. Thesis. The University of Western Ontario.

Yudhi, Wahdi S.A. (2006). Indonesia and Australia Relations in Education: A Study on Cross-cultural Negotiations. DBA Thesis submitted to La Trobe University, Bundoora, Melbourne.

Hofstede (1997, p. 37 and 43)

Hofstede (1997, p. 67 and 73)

Hofstede (1997, p. 96 and 103)

Hofstede (1997, p. 125 and 134)

 

 

Last updated: 14 December, 2006  

Top


Contact Us:  library@seameo.org
SEAMEO Secretariat, Mom Luang Pin Malakul Centenary Bldg.,
920 Sukhumvit Rd., Bangkok 10110, Thailand.  
Tel +66 (0) 2391-0144, +66 (0) 2391-0256, +66 (0) 2391-0554 Fax +66 (0) 2381-2587