When an intercultural business negotiation fails: comparing the emotions and behavioural tendencies of individualistic and collectivistic negotiators

Harri T. Luomala*, Rajesh Kumar, J.D. Singh, Matti Jaakkola

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

This study explores the linkages between culture, emotions and behavioural tendencies in unsuccessful intercultural business negotiations. A set of novel research hypotheses are developed. They are tested using a negotiation scenario analysis involving 106 Finnish and 114 Indian study participants. Three key findings emerge from the statistical tests conducted. First, new empirical evidence suggesting that qualitatively different emotions (dejection vs. agitation) are experienced after a failed intercultural business negotiation by individualists and collectivists is provided. Second, the existence of the relationship between perspective-taking ability and emotional volatility in the context of failed intercultural business negotiation involving individualists and collectivists is revealed. Third, partial support is found for the idea that different types of negative emotions can lead to the same behavioural tendency (approach) among individualists and collectivists when intercultural business negotiation fails. The paper concludes by outlining a set of theoretical and managerial implications and suggestions for further research.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)537-561
Number of pages25
JournalGroup Decision and Negotiation
Volume24
Issue number3
Early online date6 Nov 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2015

Bibliographical note

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/0.1007/s10726-014-9420-8

Keywords

  • business
  • bollectivism
  • bulture
  • emotion
  • individualism
  • negotiation

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'When an intercultural business negotiation fails: comparing the emotions and behavioural tendencies of individualistic and collectivistic negotiators'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this