Return to Home Page At the Table: Observations on Japanese Negotiation Style (or Leveling the Playing Field: Insights into Negotiating with the Japanese) 1 By Paul Herbig*, Carol Howard** and Drew Martin** and Pat Borstorff*** Abstract In business dealings with Japanese, Americans need to keep in mind the importance of understanding the art of Japanese negotiations. The cultural differences, the focal point of negotiations determined by contrasting sets of values, and behavioral mannerisms all are important factors in negotiating with the Japanese. A key question facing many corporations as they begin to negotiate is “What should we expect at the negotiation table?” Based on personal experiences and supporting literature, this article addresses this question and offers a framework for organizations to better understand negotiating with the Japanese. The four major stages of negotiating with the Japanese are covered, including characteristics found in each stage. Introduction Negotiation deals with two partners who have different needs and viewpoints attempting to reach an agreement on matters of mutual interest (Casse, 1981). When an organization conducts business across international borders, there is interaction with people and organizations nurtured in different cultural environments (Kale and Barnes, 1991). The different cultural environments add uncertainty and difficulty to an already challenging procedure. In negotiations with the Japanese, the word “negotiate” and its usual translation kosho have different meanings. Kosho has nuances of fighting, conflict, strategy (senryaku), and verbal debate (iiau), whereas Western-style negotiation lacks these overtones and usually suggests discussion, concession, conciliation, and conference (March, 1989). Negotiation between Japanese is similar to that between father and son. The status relationship is explicit and important. The son (seller) carefully explains his situation and asks for as much as possible because he will have no chance to bicker once the father (buyer) decides. The son (seller) accepts the decision because it would hurt the relationship to argue and because he trusts the father (buyer) to care for his needs. So relationship and trust are paramount in the negotiation (Adler, 1991). According to John L. Graham (1984, 1986), intercultural negotiations consists of four major processes or stages: • non-task sounding or rapport • task-related exchange of information • persuasion and compromise • concessions and agreement Understanding these processes and the emphases placed upon each by potential business partners can assist in a successful conclusion. The strategies and tactics differ among cultures as do the time spent in, and importance of, each phase. For example, the cultural tendency of the United States is to concentrate on the persuasion and compromise phase while minimizing the non-task (rapport building) phase. For many Asian cultures, Japan among them, the priorities are the exact opposite. These cross-cultural differences can lead to much confusion, misunderstanding, and frustration, resulting in little success (Tung, 1983, 1982). Japanese Negotiation Process Characteristics of the Process The Japanese negotiation process is based on the importance of maintaining harmony in relationships. Norms are established concerning obligations to others, benevolence, and the importance of others’ attitudes. The Japanese see negotiation as a fluid irrational process, calling for diligent preparation. Instead of addressing issues directly and openly stating positions and counterproposals, they prefer to infer the other parties’ assessment of the situation. The Japanese often repeat previously stated positions, using highly ambiguous language, and appear to be inconsistent. A business negotiation is a time to develop a business relationship with the goal of long-term mutual benefit. The economic issues are the context, not the content, of the talks. Once the relationship is established, other details can be settled quickly. In Japan, personal relationships are always subsumed within the context of the business relationship—friendship first and business second (Herbig and Kramer, 1992). Teams The Japanese typically negotiate in teams made up of experts in relevant fields. The negotiating team usually consists of five males, with one member serving as the symbolic head. The first individual introduces the parties initially and facilitates the signing ceremony. The other four slots are typically filled by operational staff, middle managers, the CEO, and a mediator. The qualities admired and sought in Japanese negotiators include commitment, persistence, ability to gain respect, credibility, good listening skills, pragmatism, and a broad perspective. A successful negotiation reflects the efforts of the entire Japanese team. The senior negotiator sits on one side in the middle of his team rather than at the head of the table. The top Japanese executive is seated farthest from the door. Those with authority to make a deal sit to the leader’s immediate side, with those with lesser roles at the two ends. Japanese negotiations have an air of formal politeness, conservative conduct, and good manners. Proper business etiquette must be observed at all times (Herbig and Kramer, 1991). The Macho Challenge The Japanese tend to look at negotiations as war, a macho challenge. This behavior goes back to the high level of masculinity within the culture; the Japanese concept of masculinity includes achievement, heroism, assertiveness, and material success (Hofstede, 1980). As in war, there is proper battle dress and proper rank and hierarchy in the negotiation process. The Japanese dress conservatively, always preferring dark business suits. To be dressed casually during negotiations with the Japanese would, therefore, be inappropriate. The Japanese do not believe in using first names unless in the context of the very best of personal relationships. In Japan, honorifics, title, and status are extremely important; one addresses his or her counterparts by their proper title (Kramer, 1989). The Agenda at the Table Japanese bargainers bring with them a carefully considered agenda. The Japanese are more flexible about the order of topics, but much less flexible about the choice of topics. Before action is taken in negotiation, much time is spent with relevant department heads defining the question, seeking their approval, and gathering sufficient information for a plan (James, 1993). The Japanese come to a negotiation with a hard-won time-consuming intraorganizational consensus already established, which cannot be easily changed at the bargaining table, no matter how small or seemingly irrelevant the change. To the Japanese, the Americans in their give and take appear insincere and unprepared, as they do not appear to have a firm position (Hall and Hall, 1985). Emotions The Japanese are as emotional as any other people, but they direct that emotion toward others and tend not to display it on a personal basis. The Japanese value emotions, but hide them. Showing emotion is considered in bad taste and poor conduct for any Japanese, let alone a Japanese businessman. The Japanese proverbs “No aru taka wa tsume wo kakusu”” (“An able hawk hides his talons”) and “Tanki wa sonki “ (“A short temper means a lost spirit”) illustrate their feelings on showing emotion. Arguments and overt expressions of frustration or anger are considered detrimental to the spirit of friendship that should surround any interpersonal interaction; these are considered major character flaws and not appropriate behavior (Graham and Andrew, 1987). A formal display of emotion means a loss of respect/face. Winning at the bargaining tale is unacceptable if it involves loss of face (kao) for either party. The need to save face and not be a failure in the negotiating process is a paramount consideration. Risk avoidance (kiken kaihi) also is a key principle in Japanese negotiations. Confrontational negotiating techniques are seen as impolite and disrespectful and will not lead to a relationship of trust (Graham and Sano, 1989). In fact, their dislike of conflict is so severe that aggressiveness on the part of one side will result in the Japanese withdrawing. The Japanese are deliberately vague on specific issues in the early stages of a negotiation so that any later reversal will not result in loss of face. An outright rejection of a proposal would result in the loss of face. The Japanese often use little verbal activity, nod frequently, use silence, and even close their eyes while others are speaking (in Zen Buddhist fashion, this helps them concentrate). Silence to a Japanese means one is projecting a favorable impression and is thinking deeply about the problem. When at an impasse in negotiation, the typical Japanese response is keeping silent, withdrawing, or changing the subject. The Japanese interpersonal communication style includes less eye contract, fewer negative facial expressions, and more periods of silence. The Japanese are more influenced by what is not said (Herbig and Kramer, 1992). And laughter should not be interpreted as amusement, rather it most likely is an embarrassed response because the Japanese does not understand the American’s point of view or does not wish to respond to it. Relationship Building: Non-Task Sounding The first stage, non-task sounding, includes all those activities that might be described as establishing a rapport or getting to know one another, but does not include information related to the “business” of the meeting. The Japanese consider a major purpose of negotiation to be assessing if the two organizations can get along over the long term. The Japanese negotiation process usually starts with an introduction from a reference, a go-between, a shokai-sha (third-party introducer), who has arranged the initial meeting. It is preferred that the shokaisha have a strong relationship with the buyer and thus be influential; the buyer does not want to damage the harmony and relationship with the shokaisha by rejecting the proposal (Hall and Hall, 1985). He usually attends the first meeting as well as the last meeting, the signing ceremony. Before the first meeting, he is a prime source of information for both parties. In case of an impasse in the talks between the two sides (either during the negotiations or afterward during the normal conduct of business), he is often asked to become involved to settle their differences, to become a chukaisha (mediator). At the first business meeting, the highest level of protocol is used for important strangers or those who must be shown a high degree of respect (Graham, 1986). The Japanese prefer conciliation and mediation over litigation in business matters for several reasons: reduced costs, the clogged court system (some cases drag on for as long as ten years before a final decision is reached), and the Japanese emphasis on harmony or reconciliation (chotei). The prewar Japanese constitution stated that “Japan must strive to resolve interpersonal cases by harmony and compromise.” Arbitration is viewed as a negative action, which damages the business relationship (Oikawa and Tanner, 1992). Legal approaches and confrontation are rarely used. Those approaches would destroy the harmony and trust required for continued business dealing, and they are almost impossible to regain once they are lost. The Japanese wish to maintain the relationship for mutual benefit rather than seeking a one-time gain. Time and Effort Expended Japanese executives spend substantial time and effort in non-task sounding so problems do not develop later. The Japanese believe that once the relationship has been established, further negotiations will proceed more smoothly and quickly. The rapport-building effort often includes elaborate entertainment. This is typically an all-male effort, as the business world is still very much an all-male club, and the Japanese rarely bring wives or family members to a business gathering. The large kosai-hi (entertainment expenses) typical of business dealings in Japan exceeds that spent by the Japanese government for defense (corporate wining and dining is 1.2 percent of GDP versus approximately 1 percent spend on defense) (Herbig and Kramer, 1992). Three levels of executives are typically involved—top level executives, middle managers, and operational staff. The top executives are brought into the negotiations to sign the agreement only after all the issues have been settled and agreed on by lower-level managers. The use of top executives communicates commitment and importance. Middle managers are there to bless intermediate agreements; operational staff executives are there to negotiate. During this stage of business introduction, the Japanese attempt to discover the other’s positions in the company and their mission. Every member of the negotiating team must meet and feel comfortable with every member of the other side’s negotiating team. Information specific to the issue under negotiation is not considered in the beginning; rather, the parties seek to get to know each other. The executive meetings are held in relaxed and comfortable accommodations such as restaurants and hotels where the Japanese executives are making judgments about the others’ integrity, reliability, commitment, and humility. Considerable time and expense are thus devoted to getting to know each other. In contrast, Americans negotiate a contract, the Japanese a relationship. In Japan, as in many other cultures, the written word is primarily used to satisfy legalities. Personal relations In the view of the Japanese, emotion and personal relations are more important than cold facts in business relations. The key issue is, “Can I get along with these men and their company and do I want to sell (or buy) their products?” It is not, “Can I make money on this deal?” The Japanese are particularly interested in the sincerity of those they are negotiating with. They are typically unwilling to do business with someone who they think may prove to be arrogant or unpleasant, or who they think does not like them as individuals, as a company, or as a nation: “I do not do business with a man who does not like us!” The Japanese do not separate personal feelings from business relationships. If the Japanese feel that their relationships are not yet anchored and may drift, they will stall and hesitate to do business until they are comfortable with the other party. When two Japanese companies are creating a new relationship, they are accepting each other inside their respective groups. Status, though, is always present. A buyer says otaku (your company) while a seller says on sha (your great company). Status relations dictate not only what can be said, but how it is said (Graham, 1984) Use of an Attorney A long-term business relationship between two parties in Japan is expected to be built on the principles of mutual trust, friendship, and cooperation rather than on legalistic grounds, which a lawyer would tend to emphasize. Rarely is an attorney present during the initial part of the negotiation or thereafter. Lawyers do not enjoy as much prestige in Japan as they do in the United States. In Japan, lawyers are seen as people who complicate personal relationships, get in the way of reaching basic understandings and of allowing the parties to get to know each other better. In general, lawyers are perceived as obstructing the development of the necessary cooperative business relationships. The Japanese regard the introduction of an attorney into a business negotiation as an unfriendly act, a sign of distrust, or an implied threat of litigation, since lawyers are traditionally only used for that specific purpose in Japan. This naturally bodes ill for the negotiation. Bringing a lawyer to a first meeting with a Japanese company often causes the Japanese to withdraw altogether. In business transactions, a contract is secondary to harmonious relationships; Japanese negotiators prefer conciliation and mediation over litigation (Herbig and Kramer, 1989). Japanese Interpersonal Communication Styles The Japanese are cautious in their interpersonal communication styles. Cautiousness signifies, in the Japanese culture, patience, dependability, and sincerity. Too much logical reasoning is often considered threatening, confrontational, and argumentative to a Japanese. The Japanese tend to base their understanding of people on intuition and a considerable amount of emotionality. They have a tendency to avoid logical argument in order to achieve a sense of understanding. The United States is an objective society versus Japan’s polyocular society: The Japanese take the view that all phenomena can be seen from multiple points of view, and the more angles, the more whole and comprehensive. Prior to Westernization, the Japanese had no word for objectivity. The word now is kyakkanteki, the guest’s point of view; shukanteki is the host’s point of view (Hofstede, 1980; Oikawa and Tanner, 1992). Information Exchange The most important stage to a Japanese negotiator is the information-gathering stage. During this stage, the negotiators consider the information exchanged regarding the parties’ needs and preferences as well as the parties’ expected utilities of the various available alternatives (Graham, 1986). Only after the buying side feels that a trustworthy relationship has been established will business be introduced. Japanese negotiators are concerned with understanding the other side’s point of view. Exchanging information and asking for more information are constants with the Japanese. A complete understanding is imperative to the Japanese; they ask endless questions to identify the needs and preferences of both parties in an attempt to understand the situation and associated details of the other’s bargaining position. The Japanese consider the source of the needs and preferences as critical data as they seek to place information within an interpretive context. As the Japanese gather information, they offer relatively little information coupled with ambiguous responses. It is important for the Japanese to be polite and to communicate the tatemae without giving offense, while holding back the possibly offensive but informative honne. Tatemae means “front face” and involves the formal principles of polite behavior which insures harmony and good feelings. However, honne means substance or one’s real intent and personal feelings; these are seldom divulged (Hall and Hall, 1985). They present their needs and preferences in a tactful manner. Japanese firms operate through group consensus decision-making. Each phase of the discussion process may generate more questions that must be answered. The emphasis is on gathering detailed information. A primary bargaining strategy of the Japanese is to ask questions to put the opponent on the defensive. Many times the initial meeting is merely used to gather information, which is then fed back to their superiors and peers for deliberation and a carefully prepared response. The Japanese strongly believe it is folly to make an offer until one knows what the other side wants. This explains the slow start, the lack of an initial proposal, the emphasis on information gathering, and the long drawn-out preliminary groundwork that is usually encountered when negotiating in Japan. The Japanese need detailed information to build the foundation for whatever decision they intend to put forward. No one is blamed or rebuked for shortcomings in the deal or for the failure of the venture or the negotiations, as all concerned managers participated in the negotiating and final decision making (Tung, 1982). For the Japanese firm, this exchange of information is the main part of the negotiation. A complete understanding is essential. Sellers present in detail all of the background, and only toward the end is the actual request/proposal made. The information flows mainly from seller to buyer (Kale and Barnes, 1991). Several people on the same side may ask for the same information or explanation; everyone must be convinced, not just the key decision maker. No Japanese negotiator, especially the boss, feels qualified to speak for the group before a consensus has been reached. Table Strategy Oftentimes the team on the other side of the table is not composed of the final decision makers. The Japanese frequently use the tactic of concealing their top man by positioning him on the fringe of his team; he is inconspicuous and initially makes no contribution, while a junior member acts as spokesman. The Japanese team leader might only be marginally technically competent in the specific subject matter under negotiation, but still he is the undisputed head; his credentials for leadership include seniority and often a degree from the right school. He may have been chosen because he represents the company consensus, which was achieved before the negotiations started. His symbolic authority is high, and great deference is given him by his team. Thus, one cannot assume the makeup of the opponents’ negotiating team is identical to that of one’s own team. The Japanese negotiating team will usually be a large group. To avoid being intimidated by sheer numbers, the other side must be prepared to bring sufficient staff to provide numerical balance (including sufficient technical experts). Although intimidation is not the primary reason for the large number (information transfer is), the result is the same. Order of Discussion The concept of discussing problems in a systematic, sequential, orderly manner is promoted by Americans, while the Japanese prefer haragei, to talk around a subject in order to get a holistic view. Only after this is accomplished will they go into details. The Japanese like to talk about practical solutions, resolving matters on a case by case basis. They allow the solution to precede the principle. The Japanese prefer avoiding any area in which an agreement cannot be easily reached. Instead, they tend to move to another topic in its place. To Americans, this often appears like the Japanese are trying to elude the issue. To an American, an unsolved issue is a point of contention; this, not any general principle, must first be dealt with before the agreement as a whole can be considered. To the Japanese, those very same traits indicate lack of confidence in one’s convictions and insincerity. Instead, terms such as thoughtful, cooperative, considerate, and respectful express positives in the Japanese culture. The Japanese stress areas of agreement and try to avoid contention. They attempt to conduct real negotiations away from the formal negotiating hall, using formal sessions to announce agreements reached elsewhere. Often the real negotiation is between the lowest-level bargainers, who have established a rapport, a relationship of trust with the equivalent operational-level managers on the other side. This is often done after hours, usually in one of the many bars and restaurants in Tokyo (Herbig and Kramer, 1991). Persuasion and Compromise The persuasion and compromise stage of negotiations focuses on efforts to modify the views of other parties and sway them through the use of various persuasive tactics. Americans see persuasion as a kind of conquest whereas the Japanese look on it as a meeting of the minds. The Japanese verb “to persuade” (fukumeru) also means “to include.” Any persuasion will be conducted behind the scenes, not during a formal negotiating meeting. For Japanese managers, persuasion as victory is secondary to the process of matching interests. Persuasion is typically used to compromise on certain conditions so that the two sides can close a deal (Graham and Andrews, 1987). In Japan, there is not a clear separation between information seeking and persuasion. The two stages tend to blend together as each side more clearly defines and refines its needs and preferences. So much time is spent on this task-related exchange of information that little is left to discuss during the persuasion stage. Maintaining harmony, avoiding loss of face and gaining the agreement of all involved are most important. For Japanese, it is more important to maintain the harmony in the relationship than to be frank and open. The Japanese believe that little persuasion should be necessary if the parties have taken the time to understand each other thoroughly. Since the Japanese have spent a high percentage on their time on the first two phases, Japanese negotiators often do not feel the need to allocate much time to persuasion. The First Position The first position is rarely overstated, though sometimes fuzzy. The Japanese like to regard their position as reasonable for both sides. The first proposal is carefully drafted and reasonable, reflecting the Japanese predilection for well-informed, best solutions and consensus building. The Japanese tend to offer a proposal that approximates their needs and then resist adjusting it. If the initial trust building were carried out successfully, cost may not be bargained on at all. They offer what they feel is correct, proper, and reasonable. The Japanese tend not to ask for much more than they expect to get. This technique has numerous weaknesses. Japanese negotiators develop defensive arguments with no consideration of persuading or selling or converting the other side. Nor do they usually consider what the other side might be thinking or offering, nor what their anticipated strategies should be, nor what concession strategies might be appropriate. Japanese negotiators often find themselves with no contingency or fallback plans, few officially authorized concessions, and an absence of clear policies on some questions. Primary Tactics The primary persuasive tactics in Japanese business negotiations appear to be the volunteering of more information and the use of silence (Graham, 1984). The Japanese tend to listen to persuasive arguments while responding with silence, which means that they are considering the arguments presented. Most decisions are discussed informally, behind the scenes—a continuation of the process of establishing rapport. Often members of the Japanese group will excuse themselves during a negotiating session by saying that they must caucus; they must obtain consensus both within the team and within the company. Japanese bargainers never make a concession without first taking a break; issues and arguments are considered away from the pressure of the negotiation table . At the Table The Japanese prefer to avoid formal negotiations, since to them negotiations are a form of social conflict and avoiding social conflict is penultimate in that society. Modesty and self-restraints are highly valued in their culture. The Japanese are not very argumentative, not extroverted or persuasive in the American sense. They do not criticize in public, but seek harmony among all. They prefer to be quiet when right, respectful, and patient. The Japanese typically look with horror on the confrontation and debate that can take place and would prefer to work informally, behind the scenes, so neither party will lose face. The Japanese see the negotiation as a ritualistic enactment of a predetermined agreement in which intuition, experience, and emotional sensitivity are valued. The Japanese, in their pursuit of harmony and avoidance of conflict, often do not seek eye contact; this is not a virtue to Americans. On the other side of the table, the Japanese view the American stare as rude and as aggressive, improper behavior. When challenged, Japanese executives will not argue or even discuss the point; they typically will remain silent (Graham and Sano, 1989). The repertoire of persuasive tactics available to bargainers in Japan is prescribed by status/power relationships. Buyers (who are superior) can say things to sellers that sellers would not even consider saying to buyers. Aggressive influence tactics can only be used by negotiators in higher-power status positions and are only communicated through the low-level informal communications channels. Only a few persuasive tactics are appropriate: questions, silence, a change of subject, recesses and delays. Concessions and Agreement The Japanese believe that at this stage they should understand the other side’s position and how it relates to their own so that they are in a position to decide what concessions are needed to reach a final agreement. The concessions and agreement stage of a negotiation is the culmination of the negotiating process where an agreement is reached. Often this is the summation of a series of concessions or smaller agreements. To reach an agreement that is mutually acceptable, each side frequently must give up some things; therefore, concessions by both sides are usually necessary to reach an agreement. The Japanese believe that nothing is settled until everything is settled, which is why they typically provide concessions only at the end. They expect that these will lead immediately to the conclusion of the agreement—a holistic approach to decision making. The Japanese do not make any concessions until all issues and interests have been exposed and fully discussed. Usually concessions are not decided at the negotiation table due to the nature of consensus decision making; negotiators must check with the home office before making any concessions to be sure that everyone agrees on the concessions made. Once a concession is made, it is usually considered immutable and unchangeable by the Japanese (Graham, 1986). Contracts The Japanese dislike formal Western-style contracts. They tend to prefer brief written agreements that set forth basic principles. Japanese written contracts tend to be very short, two or three pages; they are purposefully loosely written and primarily contain comments on principles of the relationship. If contractual language is necessary, a phrase such as the following is often used : “All items not found in this contract will be deliberated upon in a spirit of honesty and trust.” The Japanese prefer a gentlemen’s agreement which is an ambiguously worded statement expressing the mutual cooperation and trust that have developed between the negotiating parties. These agreements allow a great deal of flexibility in the solution of unforeseen problems and often have more force than a legal contract, since they involve a sense of honor and obligation. If something goes wrong after signing the contract, the Japanese attempt to resolve it by mutual agreement. If disputes arise, the common interests of both parties and their relative strengths are factors that generally determine the outcome. Instead of submitting disputes to a third party, such as a court, the Japanese prefer to settle their differences through discussions with people who are familiar with the respective problems and situations. In fact, to submit an issue to court would bring embarrassment to many Japanese. The Japanese do not view the signing of a contract as the end of negotiations. The Japanese view a contract as a piece of paper, and people are human beings. Japanese firms want long-term business relationships based on kan, emotional attunement. The Japanese have a stricter social code concerning obligation. The penalty for failure to discharge an obligation is dishonor of oneself, one’s name, and one’s family. The traditional Japanese view is that a contract is secondary in a business transaction, which should be premised on an ongoing, harmonious relationship between two parties who are committed to the pursuit of similar objectives; relationships, not contracts, are negotiated (Tung, 1983). Japanese contracts are always considered open for re-negotiation. To the Japanese, a negotiated agreement is seen as an indication of the direction to be taken, while adjustments and modifications can be made as conditions and circumstances warrant it. An agreement is seen only as the beginning of an adaptive process rather than the end. The American expectation of contractual finality is foreign to the Japanese way of thinking. Japanese negotiators do not mind suggesting major changes even after a contract is signed. The Japanese do not believe that a contract alone can ensure the success of a venture. According to Japanese thought, a truly wise person would not absolutely commit himself or herself, since human interactions are so indeterminate. This flexibility means the Japanese will not lose face if future circumstances should change. The fundamental Japanese approach to contracts is to emphasize the relationship being created. The contract is only a tangible acknowledgment of the existence of such a relationship, not a precise instrument that establishes and defines the relationship (Oikawa and Tanner, 1992). The Japanese feel that agreements require seasoning and maturity; as people work together, understandings become clearer and increasingly advantageous to both partners. As the relationship and conditions change, the assumption is that performance expectations ought to change. Flexibility, adjustment, and pragmatism, then, dominate the execution of long term contracts. Time The Japanese, because of their circular, polychronic sense of time, stress end-results, being less concerned with the length of the process. They are less concerned with adhering to time schedules, instead preferring to focus on the end result. Time is not as important to a Japanese person as it is to others (Hofstede, 1980). The Japanese value high quality over immediate gain, and they wait patiently for the best possible result. The Japanese prefer to follow an indirect, harmonious style when dealing with others. Go-betweens help move the process along, and interpersonal harmony is considered more important than confrontation. Not being hasty is a sign of wisdom and sincerity. The Japanese view time as a continuum and are long-term oriented. Delays do not necessarily mean a hesitancy on the part of the Japanese; delays could also mean an intense studying of the proposal as a consequence of soliciting approval from all company departments that will be affected by the outcome of the negotiation. Conclusions Knowing what to expect prior to arriving at the negotiating table adds substance and direction to an organization’s efforts in Japan. Remembering the four stages of Japanese negotiation and the important events that take place in each one can assist Americans in avoiding serious mistakes or even derailing the negotiation process. References Adler, Nancy J. (1991). International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. Boston: PWK-Kent, Inc. Casse, P. (1981). Training for the Cross-Cultural Mind. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: Society for Intercultural Education, Training, and Research. Graham, John L. (1984). “A Comparison of Japanese and American Business Negotiations.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 1/2: 51–68. Graham, John L. (1986). “Across the Negotiating Table from the Japanese.” International Marketing Review 15/ 3 (Autumn): 58–71. Graham, John L., and J. Douglas Andrews. (1987). “A Holistic Analysis of Japanese and American Business Negotiations.” Journal of Business Communications 24/4: 63–77. Graham, John L., and Yoshihiro Sano. (1989). Smart Bargaining: Doing Business with the Japanese. New York: Harper Business. Hall, Edward T. and Mildred R. Hall. (1987). Hidden Differences. New York: Anchor Books. Herbig, Paul A. and Hugh E. Kramer (1992), “ The Dos and Donts of Cross-Cultural Negotiations,” Industrial Marketing Management. _______________________(1991), “Cross-Cultural Negotiations: Success Through understanding,” Management Decisions, Volume 29, number 1, 19-31. _______________________(1992), “The Role of Cross-Cultural Negotiations in International marketing,” Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 10/2, 10-13. Hofstede, Geert. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work- related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. James, David L. (1993). Doing Business in Asia. Ohio: Betterway Books. Kale, Sudhir H. and John W. Barnes. (1991). Understanding the Domain of Cross- National Buyer-Seller Interactions. Journal of International Business Studies, 23:1. Kramer, Hugh E. (1989). “Cross-Cultural Negotiations: The Western-Japanese Interface.” Singapore Marketing Review 4: 21–34. Oikawa, Naoko, and John F. Tanner, Jr. (1992). “The Influence of Japanese Culture on Business Relationships and Negotiations.” Journal of Services Marketing 6/3 (Summer): 67–74. Tung, Rosalie L. (1983). “How to Negotiate with the Japanese.” California Management Review 26/4: 52–77. Tung, Rosalie L. (1982). Business Negotiations with the Japanese. New York: Lexington Books.