Negotiation as a specific form of intercultural communication

3. CASE STDY ANALYSIS. NEGOTIATION WITH RUSSIA AND INDIA

3.1 Characteristics of particular cultures

Before we move on to the case study we want to outline some of the specific characteristics of countries involved in them. Based on the information we outline in the literature review, we want to concentrate on features of five countries that are of interest to us. As we have stated in the introductory part of our research we focus on Indian and Russian cultures; however, as the cases involve other cultures as well, their characteristics will also be stated. For our thesis we chose two cases of negotiation which include India, Russia, the United States, Great Britain and the Netherlands.

Russia

If we describe Russia according to Hofstede's model, we can see that PD index is very high - 93. It means that there is a big discrepancy between people with power and without it, the status symbols are of significant importance to people. Status roles are reflected in behavior of negotiators: decisions are made top-down, subordinates have restricted freedom of behavior, negotiations teams are build according to the position of people in the organization.

Russia is a collectivistic culture. It can be noticed in all the spheres of life. For instance, when making a decision, either business one or a simple everyday choice, Russian people tend to learn what others have decided or what their opinion is before making up their minds. Thus, they are prone to choose what the majority have chosen. We suppose, it gives them the sense of belonging. In business life, relationships are significant in gaining information and in the process of negotiation. Moreover, Russians will try to learn as much as possible about their opponent at the beginning stages of negotiation and only then decide on their negotiating strategy and objectives.

As a feminine society, Russia cherishes modesty, cooperation, quality of life, mutual understanding, and interpersonal relationship. People accept dominant behavior, but only when it comes from the boss; if people try to stand out or show themselves off, it is not an admirable trait.

Russia scores high on Uncertainty avoidance index, which means that people feel threatened by uncertain or ambiguous situations. Because of this, Russia has a really complex bureaucracy system. Together with large Power Distance, it makes Russians follow the rules, especially when they expect to be checked, documents require numerous stamps, signatures, people are supposed to report to their supervisors. However, uncertainty makes people adapt to new situations quite quickly and find creative ways to solve problems.

Russia scores high on LTO that makes people rather pragmatic, they encourage thriftiness and value education as a way to get a better future. One of the characteristics of modern Russian businessmen is that they do not perceive business as something eternal, but rather an opportunity to make profit quickly.

In terms of indulgence, Russia has a quite low score, which signifies that people in Russia tend to be pessimistic and cynical.

According to Lewis, Russian negotiators have the following features:

- The negotiation process is like a game of chess: participants plan their activities several moves ahead.

- The delegation represents not only their company, but also the government.

- The delegation teams are formed by experienced, usually old people.

- In case there are any unexpected alterations in the process of negotiation, participants might feel the need to consult the higher members of organization.

- Compromise is seen as a sign of weakness.

- The approach to agreement is conceptual, which sometimes may cause difficulties in developing the details later.

- If Russian negotiators feel they are stronger than the other side, they can be very tough during the process.

- During the negotiation usually only one person speaks.

- They prefer to listen to the other side first, and after they have reflected on it present their position.

- Easily conceded deals make them suspicious.

- Russians are more people- than deal-oriented.

- They do not like to be talked down. (Lewis, 2006)

In addition, if we consider the ten factors that influence negotiation, outlined by Salacuse (Salacuse, 2004), we can state that Russia chooses formal style of negotiation, although the degree of it loosens over time; people prefer indirect mode of communication; time sensitivity depends on the situation, but they do not like unpunctuality; Russians are emotionally-driven negotiators, although they can hide their real feelings if they plan something (for them it is like playing chess). The form of agreement is rather specific than general and is top-down.

India

India is a very interesting country with a mixture of characteristics of various types of cultures.

Firstly, let us look at India from Hofstede's perspective. Like Russia, India is a country with a high power distance that makes it quite hierarchical society with top-down processes. Subordinates depend on their supervisors a lot, seek their acceptance and approval, and even feel the need to be nourished by them. In return, bosses expect to get unquestionable loyalty from employees.

In terms of individualism, India is neither collectivistic nor individualistic society. It scores 48 in this dimension what indicates that it has characteristics of both types of societies. As collectivists, Indians feel the necessity to belong to a larger social framework where people should act in a way that is beneficial for the in-group. In this case, their actions are effected by different things, such as opinion of the members of the in-group. Other collectivistic traits are that the relationships between subordinates and their supervisors are based on loyalty and protection, some work-related decisions, like employing, for example, are made based on the personal connections. As individuals, Indian people can be very assertive, goal-oriented and sometimes aggressive, especially when it comes to dealing with those out of group. Scholars came to a conclusion that India is rather Western society than Eastern in the way of thinking (Kumar, 2005). It means that their way of behavior, collectivistic or individualistic, highly depends on the situation. They are also not team players when it comes to negotiating, as they tend to believe that their opinion is the only correct one. (Kumar, 2005)

India scores 56 on the masculinity dimension and, thus, has mixed characteristics of masculine and feminine cultures. On the one hand, India is masculine when it comes to displaying success and power. On the other hand, it is rather spiritual country with people believing in different religious philosophies that promote modesty and humility.

Unlike Russia, India has a lower score on UAI, so they accept ambiguity, uncertainty, imperfections; Indians easily adjust to new and unexpected situations,. There are rules that need to be followed; however, one can circumvent them if wanted.

As for LTO dimension, India has an intermediate score, which makes it hard to detect a dominant preference in the society. People respect traditions and long-established norms, and at the same time support thrift. Indians believe in “karma” and rebirth, they try to establish long-term relationship and contacts if it is valuable for them.

All these, obviously, makes negotiation with them not an easy task.

Lewis (Lewis, 2006) described some traits of behavior Indians have at negotiations. They remain modest and polite during negotiations, but can be quite energetic when trying to reach an agreement. They are really good at selling their ideas, products and services, and like bargaining. It can make them disappointed if their opponent does not want to engage in bargaining. Their main negotiation strategy is win-lose, but they are flexible and can consider other options (Lewis, 2006).

In addition to all these, India is a nationalistic country, so people are quite sensitive to foreign businesspersons. Therefore, any deals proposed by foreigners are carefully scrutinized, and investors need to work hard to gain legitimacy in the stakeholders' opinion. (Kumar, 2006)

In many ways India is similar to Russia: in the way of choosing delegations (usually old and experienced people comprise them), the degree of formality, the indirect mode of communication, the top-down approach of building an agreement, and their emotionalism. Nevertheless, the Indians are less sensitive to time, and the form of agreement is a bit different. They see the world in a holistic way and agree on general terms at first, moving to details later.

United States

Although our primary focus is India and Russia, we need to consider three additional cultures (United States, Great Britain and the Netherlands) as the cases we are going to analyze later involve them.

Let us start with the US. It is an individualistic culture, with low power distance. They make all kinds of decisions and act out of their own interests. They promote equality in all spheres of life; hierarchy is established only for convenience, subordinates can easily reach their supervisors whenever they need to; relationships between workers from different levels is more relaxed, communication is rather informal. As a masculine society, people are very assertive and often implement “the winner takes all” approach. Status and money depict their success, which is why they do everything possible to achieve and gain as much as possible. When negotiating, they would rather choose win-lose strategy. The US is tolerant to ambiguous situations, they value initiative, strive for changes and innovations, open to new and uncommon ideas. Moreover, as the UAI is low, there is no need for many rules and norms, like in Russia, for example. LTO is also low, which is depicted in the fact that performance and success is measured on the short-term basis. People tend to make short-term wins in the process of doing business to see whether they make any progress or not.

The behavior of the Americans at negotiations can be summarized in the following features:

- As individualistic society they would rather make decision on their own than consult with the head office.

- They prefer informal style of communication.

- They tend to use humor, even though sometimes it might seem out of place.

- They reveal what they want from the start and expect their opponents to do the same.

- They are willing to take risks.

- They try to take all opportunities and chances they can.

- Quite impatient and want to reach an agreement in a short period of time.

- They are very direct and can openly reject the offer.

- Some of them have little interest in and knowledge of other cultures, things such as attitude to space, special dress code, and some other formalities that are important to other cultures.

- Tend to believe that money is omnipotent and can serve as a key ingredient to reaching an agreement (Lewis, 2006).

Great Britain

In term of dimensions, Britain is very similar to United States. It is individualistic, masculine society with low power distance and uncertainty avoidance, and middle score in long-term orientation. So they have quite similar traits.

If we focus on their behavior at meetings and negotiations, we can distinguish the following characteristics:

- They tend to adhere to formal style communication, switching to more informal one only after they get to know the opponent.

- They are family-oriented and this topic might arise during meetings, it also helps to establish the contact.

- Humor is important and valued.

- Britons hardly ever make decisions at first meetings, and do not like to be hurried when settling an agreement.

- They are rather indirect when rejecting a proposal.

- To understand what they mean, people need to read between the lines, as the meaning sometimes can be hidden.

- The British are more interested and ready to invest in long-term relationships.

- They often rely on their intuition when making a decision (Lewis, 2006).

The Netherlands

The last country we want to pay attention to is the Netherlands. The Netherlands is an individualistic, feminine country with small power distance, middle score of uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation and one of indulgence. Therefore, hierarchy exists only for convenience, organizations are decentralized, it is easy to access people with a higher position, decision-making is bottom-up, employees expect to be consulted when significant decisions are made. The society is loose-knit, people are independent, they put their and their immediate family's interests first, business relationships are based on reciprocal benefit. As a feminine society, the Dutch value work-life balance, support their people, at work they try to involve everyone and show that they matter and make difference. Equality is something that is being tried to be achieved. Their preferred tactic is solving conflicts and in negotiations is compromise or collaboration, so that everyone wins. The Netherlands are in between of cultures with high and low uncertainty avoidance, which means that their behavior would rather depend on the situation. There is a need for rules, but not as much as in Russia, for example, and they can be broken if needed. Security is an essential ingredient in motivating individuals and when signing a deal. The Dutch are the people with pragmatic orientation and belief that the context defines the truth; they adapt to new changing conditions and situations without difficulties.

When doing business with the Dutch it is important to remember some of the key features they display during meetings and negotiations:

- They are punctual and quite formal; however, the degree of formality loosens once they get to know their opponents.

- If the other side prefers more informal style of business conversations, they easily adapt to it.

- They avoid any personal questions and topics during negotiations, and can regard them as imposition.

- They have a tendency to make decision during lunch time, which sometimes can last hours.

- They are tolerant to bureaucracy.

- Negotiation process is analytical and fact based.

- Quality and cooperation is more important than money.

- When starting negotiation, the Dutch prefer moving straight to the point of the meeting, spending very little time on introductions and small talks (Lewis, 2006).

3.2 Case study analysis

Now it is time to move on to the analysis of the cases we have chosen for our work.

3.2.1 Shell and Sakhalin-II case

The first case we want to analyze is Shell and Sakhalin-II case. It concerns Russia and British-Dutch oil and gas Company Shell. In the 1990s Shell invested in a new gas project called Sakhalin-II in Russia, they held 55% of stakes. The company believed that the project is very perspective and it could be one of the largest oil and gas projects. However, it faced many difficulties with the Russian law system and could not realize its full potential. In 2006 Russia's president Vladimir Putin decided to obtain the majority stake in Sakhalin-II from Shell and make Gazprom the leading company in the project. The acquisition went successful for Russia, but seemed “humiliating” for Shell Chris Noon, `Russia Shows Sakhalin Partners Who the Boss Is', Forbes.com, 28 December 2008. . Nevertheless, at the end Shell's CEO, Van der Veer, thanked Putin for the deal and welcomed Gazprom to the team Lucion Kim, `Gazprom Woes Could Hurt Putin's Drive for Energy Dominance', International Herald Tribune, 4 June 2007.. The result of this case shows that Russia implemented the correct strategy of negotiation with the foreign company. By looking at this case, we want to get a better understanding on how Russia operates in the process of negotiation and see how culture actually influences it. It is worth emphasizing that this negotiation was held in secret as it concerns the government, which is why the information we could find on it is from public sources, like newspaper articles.

Russian negotiation style is rather rigid; they try to win without making any concessions. Usually, they try to make their opponent to make the first proposal and to be the first to compromise sometimes by threat of force, sometimes by promising incentives. Once they see the other side is ready to compromise and make concessions, they realize they are in a stronger position and push the other party to make even more concessions, while they themselves make none. Nonetheless, Russians want to be seen as equal to the western community and, thus, they adhere to the obligations stated in the contract. For this reason, restraining Russians by details in the contract is a good tactic. (Meerts, 2009) So the question is, to what extent all those characteristics we stated above are reflected in this case?

The negotiation process

Initially, in the 1990s, Shell started the Sakhalin-II project together with the Japanese companies Mitsubishi and Mitsui. Shell had a controlling stake in the SEIC (Sakhalin Energy Investment Corporation), and the latter two companies held 20 and 25% respectively. It was the first project located in Russia in which Russia did not take part. In 2005 Gazprom proposed to Shell to exchange half of its Sakhalin-II stocks for a 50% stake in another gas project in Zapolyarnoye field. Although the deal was not beneficial for Shell, it was signed. It is believed that they were politically pressured to accept the proposal. Thomas Catan and Arkady Ostrovsky, `Shell and Gazprom Agree Swap', Financial Times, op.cit. After some time, Shell announced that Sakhalin-II required more money for development and they had to double their initial investments. It meant that Gazprom had to pay more for this project and Russian government had to wait a bit longer to get the money from it. It can be regarded as Shell's bargaining tactic as the deal they signed was disadvantageous for them and they wanted to improve it. `Sakhalin II Project's Phase 2 Cost Estimate Rising', Oil & Gas Journal, vol. 103, no. 28, July 2005. However, Putin did not like that turn of events. The reaction was immediate. Firstly, Shell was deprived the ability to explore and exploit gas in the Barents Sea. Secondly, the Russian government attempted to impede Shell from supplying further necessary money for Sakhalin-II. Arkady Ostrovsky, `Kremlin Makes Life Difficult on Sakhalin', Financial Times, 22 November 2006. Russia was not ready accept the rising costs and fought back. After those quite rough measures Shell was invited to take part in another not related to Sakhalin-II project. Here we can notice that representatives of Shell try to find a compromise with Russia, as the initial deal was not beneficial for them, so they tried to equalize their conditions with Gazprom; however, Russian representatives were not ready to compromise. They tried to implement force and pressure at first, and later incentives (when they invited Shell to participate in another project) to get what they wanted.

Later on, Russia stroke again, prohibiting the construction of pipelines out of environmental concerns. It stopped all the processes in Sakhalin-II. In return, the European Commission threatened to lower the imports of gas to Europe, if Shell would be continued treated in such a way. However, no threats from European company and EU did not bother the Kremlin, they were not ready to make concessions and only agreed to stick to the first deal they had signed. Eventually, after even more moves from the Russian government against Shell, Shell gave up and sold half of their stakes in Sakhalin-II to Gazprom for a very low price. Moreover, it did not get a stake in Zapolyarnoye field, as promised initially `Gazprom neemt de macht over op Sachalin', Het Financieele Dagblad, 22 December 2006; and Andrew Kramer, `Shell Cedes Control of Sakhalin-2 to Gazprom', International Herald Tribune, 21 December 2006 . Thus, Russia turned out to be the winner in that battle.

All these confirm the way Russia negotiates. It is historically and culturally inherent in Russians to fight for their territory and power, they are not ready to compromise. During this long process of negotiations with Shell we could see that Russian way of negotiation is rather extreme, and once they saw the other side (Shell) was ready to make concessions Russia pushed them to make even more, eventually getting a very beneficial for Russia deal.

What is more, this case validates that Russian do not like to be talked down, they want to be seen as equals. That is why when Shell and EU started threatening them, their toughness only escalated, which resulted in even more problems for Shell. Part of the problems were connected to the complex bureaucracy system, and system of laws, that is culturally easier in the Western Europe. Furthermore, it was evident that delegations from Gazprom represented not only the company, but the whole government, and eventually, it was the government that fought for the project.

Unfortunately, due to the secrecy of this case, we are not able to dig dipper to analyze more traits of Russian culture that play role in negotiations. We were not able to get scripts of the negotiations, which is why we could not confirm characteristics such decision-making strategies, degree of formality, directness of negotiators. We could not analyze the delegation teams and see how they were actually formed. Nevertheless, some of the characteristics still could be noticed. We could outline the preferred negotiation strategy of Russia, which is competing; their unwillingness to compromise and desire to display power. Later on, we will provide some recommendations for negotiations with Russia. And now we want to move on to the next case that involves the second culture, which is of interest for our work.

3.2.2 Enron's Indian Negotiation Debacle

This case concerns the Indian government and the US energy company Enron. For Enron it was a very difficult process of negotiation as Indians are not easy to negotiate with. By examining this case we want to see why it is so hard to negotiate with Indian people.

Enron was once a top energy company based in Huston, USA. In the 1990s it made a decision to expand its area of activities and engaged in negotiations with India about a major energy project in their territory. Enron suggested building a power plan in Maharashtra, the third largest state in India, supplying necessary for the plan gas from Enron's partner in Qatar. Due to the fact that in was supposed to be the biggest project in India, it was suggested to broke it down into two phases. In the first stage they would use locally produces natural gas, and at the second stage they would import it from Qatar. Indian town Dabhol was chosen as the project site.

At negotiation were present the representatives from Enron company, the state government of India, and the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB).

Securing a long-term buyer of electricity and generating an adequate return to investors were the key elements of the deal. MSEB, being the only possible buyer, would have to sign a long-term contract with the Dabhol Power Project Company to implement the project. Soon the contract was sign, with the condition that MSEB would pay no more than 7.3 cents per kilowatt/hour to the Dabhol project. Consequently, three problems appeared: The World Bank stated that traditional sources of fuel were less costly that launching the project; the return rate did not satisfied the Indian government; public opposition and concerns were the third obstacle of the project. Nevertheless, Enron overcame those difficulties by creating campaign, promoting the positive ecological impact of the project, negotiating the return rate and debating with the public opinion on the project.

When the Dabhol Power Project finally began functioning, public disapproval of it increased, people questioning its legitimacy. After some time MSEB annulled its contract with the Dabhol Power Company. As a result, Enron was losing a large amount of money. Despite that problem Enron and the Indian government renegotiated the deal and started the project once again; however, Enron still faced bankruptcy as MSEB stopped purchasing power from them, and, thus, the project failed.

So, what conclusions can we make based on the case we have just described? American company did not take into account that India is people-oriented country that usually does business with people they have strong relationships with. The US, being a goal-oriented company, wanted to make the deal in a short period of time and did not establish trusted relationship with India that led to skeptical opinion of the society toward the project and hesitant behavior of the Indian government and MSEB. As the deal was signed rather quickly, some Indian powerbrokers felt suspicious about it and believed that the reason for the speedy process was corruption. Another mistake was that Enron did not find any local partners in India; all its partners were from the US. It prevented India and Enron from having long-term strong relationship.

However, at the initial stage relationship might not be of high importance to India due to the fact that it possesses mixed features of both collectivistic and individualistic societies. The need for relationship will increase over time. Thus, even if Enron wanted to sign the deal as soon as possible, it should have done something afterwards to secure it by establishing trusted relationship with India. Maybe it could have found at least one local company and make it a partner in their business.

This case also demonstrates that India is a nationalistic culture that treats foreigners with a degree of suspiciousness and carefully examines proposals. That is why it took quite a long time to sign the contract. Furthermore, the negotiation process can last for a long period of time attempting to get the best deal possible, that exactly what happened with Enron. For this reason the commence of the project was delayed.

Another trait that can be traced in this case is that contracts in India do not have the same value as in the US. They try to renegotiate the deal if they feel there is a room for concessions from the other side.

Similarly to the first case, there is limited opportunity to analyze the process of negotiation deeper as the information available on the case is very general and we do not have access to the scripts of the meetings. Nevertheless, we were able to see some of the cultural characteristics of Indian people that influence negotiations.

3.3 Recommendations

Having examined the literature on culture and negotiation, and the negotiation cases, we would like to make some recommendations necessary for Russian-Indian negotiations.

When negotiating with Russia it is essential to remember the following:

- Punctuality is important;

- remember that Russians are proud people and do not like to be talked down or humiliated;

- to make a great deal with Russians one needs to establish good relationships with them first;

- be prepared for a complex bureaucracy system;

- compromise is regarded as a sign of weakness, which is why one should not show their readiness to make concessions, otherwise negotiation result might not be mutually beneficial;

- be prepared for tough negotiations, Russians can be quite aggressive during the process;

- as there is usually one person in the delegation who is in charge, try to address them directly, but do not forget about the others;

- show respect toward the elderly and recognize their hierarchical structure to understand who makes the final decision

- as Russia is high-context culture, sometimes it is important to read between the lines; be prepared to hear quotes from literature or some famous Russian sayings that might be difficult to understand

- the Russians do not feel comfortable to take risks, therefore, the proposal should be made in such a way that leaves no place for hesitation

- being rather a conservative nation, Russian people do not accept and adapt to changes; so something new should be introduces and implemented slowly.

When negotiating in India negotiators should take into account the following:

- The Indians are tolerant to tardiness and cancellation of a meeting, if there is a valid reason, especially if it concerns family, as they are very family people;

- Be prepared for long negotiations, the Indians prefer to get to know their opponents before doing business with them. Pushing them to talk business at initial stages can lead to negotiation failure;

- most of the contracts are signed based on the intuition and trust toward their partners, which is why negotiators should build strong relationship with Indian representatives;

- it is vital to pay attention to extralinguistic situations, such as intonation, pith, body language, as a great deal of information is behind their exact words;

- avoid being direct, do not make them lose their face;

- as India is quite nationalistic country, it would be an advantage, if negotiators showed knowledge of culture and history of their country;

- be careful with jokes, they tend to understand everything literary;

- foreign negotiators should be prepared for a very suspicious attitude, and more scrutinized attention toward everything they propose;

- try to avoid conflicts and implementing competing strategy of negotiations; Indians negotiators would rather attempt to reach a compromise;

- new ideas and changes are welcomed, initiatives are valued.

4. Conclusion

In conclusion, we can claim that we have reached the goal and answered the research questions of our work. First of all, we examined the notions of intercultural communication, culture, and negotiation. Secondly, we highlighted various types of cultures and some of their main characteristics. Moreover, we were able to investigate what role culture played in the negotiation process and to what extent cultural characteristic influenced it. And finally, we identified cultural features of Indian and Russian negotiators and studied how they were displayed in real-life negotiation cases.

Having examined the features of intercultural negotiations, we can state that in the context of globalization and integration of economic, political and cultural systems it is necessary to apply knowledge of intercultural business communication for the successful conduct of negotiations. Due to the fact that negotiations are an essential part of people's activities, the success of business communication depends on their competent organization.

Therefore, during the preparation stages of any intercultural negotiation, participants should take into account the national and cultural features of their partners. It has been noted that the nature of negotiations is different in various cultures. The perception of negotiations, negotiation goals, attitude, sensitivity to time, significance of context, formation of delegation, agreement building strategies, decision-making processes differs from country to country. Obviously, it is all influenced by the participants' culture. To understand their behavior parties should spend some time exploring their opponents' culture and their specific characteristics.

Due to the fact that relationships between India and Russia are developing, more and more negotiations between the two cultures happen. For this reason, we wanted to find out features of these two cultures and explore how their cultures influenced the process of negotiation. Having done the research, we can conclude that Russia and India possess both convergent and divergent features. Based on the information we found we were able to give some recommendations on how to negotiate with Russia and India.

We believe that this work can help understand better how to negotiate with Russians and Indians and can be utilized for preparation for intercultural negotiations that involve these two cultures. Moreover, it can serve as the basis for further research and case-studies for several reasons. Firstly, the topics of intercultural communication and negotiation are very broad and there are aspects of them that were not covered in the present research, although we tried to make it quite extensive. Secondly, it should be remembered that although representatives of different cultures possess some characteristics that are common to all the people of the culture, individual peculiarities influence negotiation process too. Hence, it is important to take into account personal characteristics along with cultural ones when preparing for negotiations. And lastly, there are limited opportunities to study cases of Russian-Indian negotiations, which means that this area is not fully researched yet.

References

1) Cohen R. (2002) Negotiating Across Cultures: Communication Obstacles in International Diplomacy. Revised ed. Wash., D.C.: US Institute of Peace Press

2) Faure, G.O., and G. Sjostedt. (1993). Culture and Negotiation: An Introduction in G.O. Faure, and J.Z. Rubin (eds.), Culture and Negotiation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

3) Fisher G. (1980) International Negotiation: A Cross*Cultural Perspective. Chicago: Intercultural Press

4) Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, W. B. (1981). Getting to Yes, 1-90

5) Fisher G. (1997) Mindsets. The Role of Culture and perception in International Relations. 2nd ed. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.

6) Galyna, S., & Danilova, T. (2018). Dialogue of cultures?: E. Hall and F. Kluckhohn, (November). Doi 10.32461/2226-3209.3.2018.147319

7) Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Anchor Books/Doubleday.

8) Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R., (1990) Understanding Cultural Differences: German, French and Americans, Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, p. 6.

9) Hoebel, E.A. (1972). Anthopology: The Study of Man. (4th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.

10) Hofstede, G. (2000): Culture's consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. 2^nd ed. London: Stage Publications

11) Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures?: The Hofstede Model in Context Dimensionalizing Cultures?: The Hofstede Model in Context, 2, 1-26.

12) Hofstede G, Minkov M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Third Edition

13) Kulikova L.V. (2004) Intercultural communication: theoretical and applied aspects: monograph/ Krasnoyarsk, RIO KGPU

14) Kumar Rajesh, March / April 2005: Negotiating with the complex, imaginative Indian

15) Lebedeva M.M. (2010) Techniques of negotiations. Aspect Press

16) Lewis, R. D. (2006) When Cultures Collide: Leading Across Culture. 3^rd ed.

17) Lewicki, R., & Saunders, D. (2007). Essentials of Negotiation fourth edition.

18) Likhachev D.S. (1990) About Russian national character// Philosophy questions. № 4, p.3

19) Meerts, P. (2009). Negotiating with the Russian Bear?: Lessons for the EU?? ?Paul Meerts (Ed.). College of Europe EU Diplomacy Paper 2009/8

20) Salacuse, J.W. (1991). Making Global Deal - Negotiating in the International Market Place. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

21) Salacuse, J. W. (1999). Intercultural Negotiation in International Business *. Intercultural negotiation Group Decision and Negotiation (Vol. 8).

22) Salacuse, J.W. 2004. The Top Ten Ways That Culture Can Affect International Negotiations. Ivey Business Journal. Issue: September/October.

23) Samovar L.A., Porter R.E., McDaniel E.R., Roy C.S. (2013) Communication Between Cultures (8th ed.) Wadsworth, Cengage Learning

24) Yin, R.K., (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications.

Размещено на Allbest.ru

...