MGT 445 Week 5 Negotiating Across Cultures and Technology Example

Buying Cement From Izmir by Video Call: Negotiating Across Cultures and Through Technology at Harbor Point Concrete

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

MGT/445: Organizational Negotiations

Week 5 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Harbor Point Concrete, its supplier and all terms are composites written for a model paper; cultural patterns describe tendencies, not individuals.

Until now, the composite concrete firm Harbor Point has bought its cement from domestic producers, but rising prices led it to explore imports. A producer in Izmir, Turkey, exports cement by ship to Florida ports. Harbor Point's purchasing manager scheduled two video calls with the producer's export manager, aiming to agree on a three-year contract within a month. After the second call, the talks stalled, and email exchanges about price became tense. Negotiating across cultures through a screen doubles the chance that each side misreads the other, because both the culture and the channel strip away cues people rely on. This paper analyzes what went wrong and plans the next round.

What Happened in Round One

Harbor Point's team opened the first call with volume and a target price, asked for a written offer within a week and proposed signing within a month. The Turkish managers spent much of the call describing their company's history and asking about Harbor Point's owners and plans. The second call included a more senior Turkish executive, who said little. Harbor Point then emailed a counteroffer with a deadline, and the reply was polite but noncommittal.

Culture as Tendencies

Cultural research describes average tendencies in a society, not the behavior of any individual. Many Turkish business relationships emphasize personal trust and relationships before formal agreements, respect for hierarchy and senior decision makers and more indirect communication about disagreement than is typical in U.S. business. These tendencies can help explain the stalled talks without predicting how any specific manager will act.

Research on Intercultural Outcomes

Brett and Okumura (1998) compared U.S. and Japanese negotiators and found that intercultural pairs achieved lower joint gains than pairs from the same culture, largely because they understood each other's priorities less accurately. Gelfand and Christakopoulou (1999) found that culture shaped negotiators' judgments of their counterparts' interests. The lesson is that intercultural negotiators must work harder to learn what the other side values.

Reading Round One Again

Seen this way, the Turkish managers' questions about Harbor Point's history were relationship building and due diligence, not delay. The senior executive's presence signaled interest. Harbor Point's deadline-driven email may have seemed disrespectful. The two sides were not yet negotiating the same thing: Harbor Point a price, the producer a relationship.

The Effect of the Channel

Stuhlmacher and Citera (2005) found in a meta-analysis that computer-mediated negotiations were more hostile than face-to-face ones. Email removes tone and facial expression, and short messages can read as curt. The sharper emails in round one fit this pattern.

Interests Beneath the Positions

Applying earlier course tools, Harbor Point's interests are lower and stable cement costs, reliable shipments and quality that meets U.S. standards. The producer's interests likely include steady export volume, a reliable customer for a new market and payment security. Both value a long relationship, which supports an integrative approach.

Preparing for Round Two

Harbor Point will learn more about the producer's business, its other export markets and the costs of shipping to Florida. It will identify its BATNA, continued domestic purchases, and its walk-away price, and estimate the producer's alternatives, such as sales to other U.S. ports.

Relationship Building in Person

Harbor Point's owner and purchasing manager will visit Izmir, tour the plant, meet the senior executive and share meals. In-person meetings build trust that video cannot. The visit signals seriousness and respect for the producer's approach.

Matching Channels to Stages

Relationship building and difficult issues will be handled in person or by video with cameras on. Technical specifications and logistics will be discussed in video calls with engineers. Email will be used to summarize agreements and share documents, not to argue about price.

Language and Interpretation

The export manager speaks English well, but technical cement standards and contract terms carry risk of misunderstanding. A professional interpreter will join key meetings, and the contract will be reviewed in both languages.

Using AI Tools

Harbor Point's team used an AI tool to draft emails in round one. AI tools can help summarize meetings, translate informal messages and prepare questions. They also carry risks: entering confidential price limits into public tools, producing tone that sounds cold or making errors in technical terms. Harbor Point will use AI only for drafts reviewed by people and never enter its reservation price or confidential cost data.

Time Zones and Pace

Izmir is seven hours ahead of Tampa, so a 9 a.m. call in Florida reaches Turkish managers late in their afternoon. Rotating meeting times shares the inconvenience, which itself signals respect. Pace also matters: decisions that require the senior executive will take longer than Harbor Point's purchasing manager is used to. Building those weeks into the timeline prevents the impatience that colored round one.

Who Decides

In round one, Harbor Point assumed the export manager could approve terms. The silent senior executive was likely the decision maker, and the export manager may have needed his agreement before responding. In round two, Harbor Point will ask directly how decisions are made and who must approve the contract, and will make sure its own owner attends the meetings where the senior executive is present, matching seniority on both sides.

Building the Agreement

The contract will include price with a formula tied to shipping costs, quality testing at both ends, a minimum annual volume with flexibility, payment by letter of credit and dispute resolution through international arbitration. These terms address both sides' interests in security.

Reflecting on the Course

Across five weeks, Harbor Point's negotiations showed that preparation sets outcomes, value can be created through trades, stakeholders' interests lie beneath their positions, conflict often has structural causes and culture and channel shape how all of this plays out. The same principles apply, but they must be adapted to the people and the medium.

Conclusion

Round one stalled because Harbor Point negotiated a price while the producer was building a relationship, and email sharpened misunderstandings. Research on intercultural and virtual negotiation explains both problems. A visit, deliberate channel choices, interpretation and careful use of AI tools give round two a better chance of producing a durable agreement.

References

Brett, J. M., & Okumura, T. (1998). Inter- and intracultural negotiation: U.S. and Japanese negotiators. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 495-510. https://doi.org/10.2307/256938

Gelfand, M. J., & Christakopoulou, S. (1999). Culture and negotiator cognition: Judgment accuracy and negotiation processes in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(3), 248-269. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2845

Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Citera, M. (2005). Hostile behavior and profit in virtual negotiation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(1), 69-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-6984-y