Cultural diversity in small groups is an important concern because of demographic changes around the world (Oetzel, 2001). To understand these changes, many researchers have examined the influence of cultural diversity on small group processes and outcomes. Although several scholars have emphasized that cultural diversity can benefit group performance in certain tasks (McLeod, Lobel, & Cox, 1996), numerous researchers have indicated that cultural diversity also leads to less effective communication processes (e.g., tension and power struggles) because of different communication styles (Cox, 1994).

After a military government came to power in Burma in 1962, Chinese living in Burma faced racial prejudice and discrimination and, as a result, many lost their jobs or became bankrupt. Of those forced to leave, many moved to Taiwan and formed close bonds with the indigenous population. Consequently, there are now approximately 40,000 Burmese Chinese living in Huaxin Street, Jhonghe, Taipei County, and they make up about 0.17% of Taiwan’s population (Chen, 2005; You, 2009). As a result of this influx, business relationships have developed between the Taiwanese and this small group of Burmese Chinese who have opened a variety of businesses, including restaurants, video, book, and grocery stores, focusing on traditional Burmese culture to cater to the group’s needs. The business negotiation style and method of interaction of this group is shaped by their culture, and this often leads to misunderstanding and conflict with the Taiwanese majority. The purpose in this study was to explore the differences in business negotiation styles between the Taiwanese majority and the small group of Burmese Chinese who live in Taiwan.

Negotiation Styles

As Chang (2006) has pointed out, Chinese culture has incorporated various aspects of many nationalities and regions. Different cultures associated with the same region at different times and with various regions at the same time coexist and interact. Chang also observed that even when both parties in a negotiation share the same parent culture and negotiate in the same language, disputes or conflicts may still occur because the groups may have different values and action styles that reflect their different demographic backgrounds (see Figure 1).

The dual concern model developed by Blake and Mouton (1968) consists of two dimensions: concern for oneself and concern for another party. According to this model there are five negotiating strategies: competition, accommodation, withdrawal, collaboration, and consultation. Competition is characterized by the individual being assertive and uncooperative. Competitive negotiators pursue their own concerns at the other party’s expense. It is a power-oriented mode in which the negotiator uses whatever power seems appropriate to win his or her own position; the ability to argue, rank, or economic sanctions. Competing means standing up for one’s rights, defending a position that the negotiator believes is correct, or simply trying to win.

Accommodation is characterized by the individual being unassertive and cooperative – the complete opposite of competing. When accommodating, negotiators neglect their own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other party; there is an element of self-sacrifice in this mode. Accommodating might take the form of selfless generosity or charity, obeying another person’s order when one would prefer not to, or yielding to another’s point of view.

Withdrawal is the strategy used by negotiators who are unassertive and uncooperative. They will neither pursue their own concerns nor those of the other party. Thus, these negotiators do not deal with the conflict. These people will feel comfortable only in a nonthreatening situation. Withdrawing might take the form of diplomatically sidestepping an issue, postponing an issue until a better time, or simply withdrawing completely from a threatening situation. Collaboration is a strategy in which negotiators are both assertive and cooperative – the complete opposite of withdrawing. Collaborating involves an attempt to work with others to find some solution that fully satisfies the concerns of both negotiating parties. It means probing into an issue to pinpoint the underlying needs and wants of the two parties. Collaborating between two persons might take the form of exploring a disagreement to learn from each other’s insights or trying to find a creative solution to an interpersonal problem. Both negotiating parties hope to reach a mutual understanding. Compromise is a strategy used by negotiators who are moderately assertive and have a cooperative and sharing orientation – it is a strategy between competing and accommodating (concessive). Mutual compromise to achieve a peaceful coexistence is emphasized and the result of the negotiation is a win-mixed-with-lose situation.

Jehn (1995) classified disputes and conflicts in business negotiation into relationship conflicts and task conflicts according to the situations in which the conflict happens. In the current study, only the task conflict behavior of business people was addressed.

According to dos Santos-Pearson (1995), when an individual is concerned about the interests of both self and others, the collaboration strategy is more likely to be applied for resolving task-oriented conflicts. Because Burmese tend to be more individualistic and, thus, less interested in the interests of others than are Taiwanese, I proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: In task-oriented negotiations Taiwanese individuals will be more likely to select the collaboration strategy than will Burmese Chinese individuals.

Power distance refers to the acceptance of unequal power distribution in an organization within a society. High power distance cultures tend to have wider power gaps between adjacent levels in the organization (Chang et al., 2010). According to Hofstede (2001) and Rarick and Nickerson (2008), the index of power distance among Burmese and Taiwanese is 26 and 58, respectively. Because Taiwanese are more collectivist and have a higher score in power distance, I proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: In task-oriented negotiations Taiwanese individuals will be more likely to select the compromise strategy than will Burmese Chinese individuals.

According to Hofstede (2001) and Rarick and Nickerson (2008), the index of uncertainty avoidance among Burmese and Taiwanese is 89 and 69, respectively, which means that Taiwanese tend to be more comfortable acting without complete information. Because Burmese are less familiar with business customs in Taiwan and are less comfortable with uncertainty, I proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: In task-oriented negotiations Burmese Chinese individuals will be more likely to select the accommodation strategy than will Taiwanese individuals.

According to Hofstede (2001) and Rarick and Nickerson (2008), the index of individualism among Burmese and Taiwanese is 51 and 17, respectively. Because people who have a higher index score for individualism are more self-reliant than other people and more likely to choose a competitive strategy (Pearson, 1995), I proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: In task-oriented negotiations Burmese Chinese individuals will be more likely to select the competition strategy than will Taiwanese individuals.

Individuals from cultures in which there is less uncertainty avoidance are more comfortable with risk. When faced with a conflict, they realize there is an option to walk away from the negotiation table and return to the market to find another business partner. Because the Burmese are less comfortable with risk than are Taiwanese, and are less familiar with the business communities in Taiwan, I proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5: In task-oriented negotiations Burmese Chinese individuals will be more likely to select the withdrawal strategy than will Taiwanese individuals.

Method

Sample

Participants took part in the study voluntarily and consisted of 400 businesspeople who worked in the service industry in Taiwan. Data on the Burmese Chinese in Taiwan were gathered from questionnaires given to merchants in Burmese Chinese stores in Huaxin Street, Jhonghe, and Nanshijiao. Additional questionnaires were given to visiting Burmese Chinese residents whose contact information was obtained from the Burma Overseas Chinese Association and Jhonghe City Household Registration Office. Of 200 questionnaire distributed to Burmese Chinese, 131 valid copies were returned. A further 200 copies were distributed to Taiwanese merchants who were members of the Chung Hsing branch of the International Lions’ Club in Taipei, Taiwan and the Federation of the International Management Council of Taiwan, and 152 valid questionnaires were returned from this group.

Results

Analysis of Validity

Before I distributed the questionnaire I pretested it for reliability and validity with 50 businessmen in Taipei, Taiwan. Cronbach’s α value for each negotiation style represents the level of validity (Table 1). Three values were higher than .7, indicating a high level of validity, and two values were between .6 and .7, indicating an acceptable value that supports the validity of the measures I used.

Hypothesis Testing

To determine whether or not Taiwanese and Burmese Chinese entrepreneurs from small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) differ in terms of the negotiation styles that they use, I conducted a t test using subculture as the independent variable (Table 2).

Analysis of the collaboration negotiation strategy revealed a significant difference (t = -2.116, p = .35) between the two subcultures, supporting Hypothesis 1. The findings indicated that Burmese Chinese are more likely than Taiwanese to choose collaboration and seek to work with the other party in the negotiation to achieve mutual gains.

Hypothesis 2 was not supported. The subcultural difference was not significant for compromise as a negotiation strategy (t = -1.512, p = .132). This indicated that compromise is a negotiation style common to both groups in both interpersonal and work-related conflict and this result supports the concept that negotiation is the art of compromising.

Hypothesis 3 was supported. There was a significant difference between the Burmese Chinese and Taiwanese groups in the use of accommodation as a negotiation strategy (t = -5.273, p < .01), with the Burmese Chinese group being more inclined to accommodate the other party

There was also a significant subcultural difference in the use of the competition negotiation strategy (t =-2.084, p < .05), supporting Hypothesis 4. Burmese Chinese tended more towards competition and showed a preference for maintaining control in negotiation proceedings. A possible explanation is that they outwardly demonstrated collaboration, while inwardly tending towards a more competitive style. A further possibility is that their collaborative behavior reflected their immigrant status.

Hypothesis 5 was supported. Analysis of use of the withdrawal negotiation strategy revealed a significant subcultural difference (t = -3.130, p < .01), indicating that Burmese Chinese tend more towards withdrawal than do Taiwanese. This finding is similar to the findings on collaboration and accommodation, and suggests that the Burmese Chinese tended to favor the traditional Chinese preference for avoidance of conflict.

In general, according to our results, the Burmese Chinese who took part in our study were flexible when dealing with a negotiation. They were comfortable using collaboration, compromise, accommodation, and withdrawal as strategies in negotiation. Similarly, we found that the Taiwanese participants in our study were also capable of compromising in negotiation proceedings. However, because they were more aggressive, they placed less value on collaboration and accommodation and did not use withdrawal as a strategy when negotiating.

Discussion

I examined the use of collaboration, compromise, accommodation, competition, and withdrawal as negotiating styles, by Taiwanese and Burmese Chinese people in task-oriented conflicts. The aim in this study was to determine how different negotiation styles impact on business proceedings. The findings can be used in a practical way to make the process of business negotiations mutually productive.

For years, the Chinese have had the economic upper hand in negotiations within Burmese society. Although this made the Burmese a target of extortion for the military government, it also unintentionally turned them into a distinct class among the local Burmese (You, 2009). The Burmese Chinese living in Taiwan represent an important subculture. My findings indicated that there are differences in the negotiation strategies used by Taiwanese and Burmese Chinese in Taiwan. Burmese Chinese merchants are gentle in negotiating and are likely to solve conflicts by using the strategies of collaboration and compromise.

I found that there were differences in negotiation style used according to the type of conflict. The degree of influence of conflict type was slightly lower than that of subcultures for collaboration and competition strategies. When the participants in this study were facing a task-oriented conflict, the tendency towards using collaboration and competition strategies was higher among both the Burmese Chinese and the Taiwanese than when facing a relationship conflict. This finding demonstrates that both subcultural groups aim to achieve a balance between collaboration and control in their business proceedings.

A limitation in this study is that Hofstede’s (1980) culture scores were used to argue the hypotheses. As this study is a preliminary exploration of the influence of culture on international negotiation, there is scope for further research.

Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1968). The managerial grid: Key orientations for achieving productions through people. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Chang, L.-C. (2006). Subcultural influence on Chinese negotiation styles. Journal of Global Business Management, 2, 189-195.

Chang, L.-C., Furner, C. P., & Zinko, R. A. (2010). A study of negotiations within the ethnic Chinese community between Taiwan and Hong Kong. Management Research and Practice, 2, 329-344.

Chen, L.-F., Xu, Z., & Chen, Y.-R. (2005). Taiwan heart with Burmese affection. Taiwan: Taiwan Educational World Network Exposition.

Cox, T. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.

McLeod, P. L., Lobel, S. A., & Cox, T. H. (1996). Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups. Small Group Research, 27, 248-264. http://doi.org/hj6

Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Self-construals, communication processes, and group outcomes in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Small Group Research, 32, 19-54. http://doi.org/hj7

dos Santos-Pearson, V. M. (1995). Cross-cultural differences in styles of negotiation between North Americans (U.S.) and South Americans (Brazil). Doctoral dissertation, New Mexico State University, New Mexico.

Rarick, C., & Nickerson, I. (2008). Combining classification models for a comprehensive understanding of national culture: Metaphorical analysis and value judgements applied to Burmese cultural assessment. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 12, 9-19.

You, H.-C. (2009). Hua-Shin Street community: An urban enclave in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, Shih-Hsin University, Taiwan.

Lieh Ching Chang, Department of International Business Administration, Hsuan Chuang University, 48 Hsuan Chuang Road, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan, ROC. Email: [email protected]