The Rise and Impact of the âZoom Negotiationâ: Cross-Cultural Variations in Virtual Negotiations and Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemics

Edoardo Agamennone

Jump to Content

Chapter 1 The Rise and Impact of the âZoom Negotiationâ

Cross-Cultural Variations in Virtual Negotiations and Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemics

In: The Impact of Covid on International Disputes

Author:

Edoardo Agamennone

Edoardo Agamennone
Search for other papers by Edoardo Agamennone in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed

Type:: Chapter

Pages:: 5â27

DOI:: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004514836_003

Access via:

Dar Hadith al Hassania

Download PDF

Abstract

National measures adopted worldwide to curb the COVID-19 pandemics and international travel restrictions forced companies across the world to rely on teleconferencing and videoconferencing to conduct negotiations, including those aimed at the resolution of disputes. Although these modalities were widely used before the COVID-19 pandemics, over the past 16 months domestic and cross-border business negotiations were conducted almost entirely through virtual means. Starting from the existing literature on cross-cultural negotiations and based on a comprehensive survey conducted among business executives, consultants and professionals in Europe, North America and Asia, the purpose of this experimental chapter is twofold: extending the current understanding of the implications of in person vs virtual negotiations, and analysing the variation across cultural variants, focusing on Western vs Eastern/Asian cultural traits. The results support the hypothesis that, while COVID-19 has generally hindered negotiations and the resolution of disputes worldwide, the extent of such negative effect is influenced by the different dimensions of culture (e.g., values, norms, rituals, patterns of communication). Overall, Eastern cultures have shown a higher aversion towards online negotiations and are more likely to return to pre-Pandemic negotiation patterns once restrictions to domestic and international travel are lifted.

1 Introduction

The covid-19 pandemic has accelerated trends that were already in place before its eruption at the end of 2019. The most significant trend is the integral and almost overnight digitalization of workplace interactions, with conversations occurring almost exclusively through email, text chat, and video conference. Such rapid change affected personal and professional dynamics on many different levels: with individuals working mainly from home, work-life distinctions became blurred, sometimes beyond recognition; business travel disappeared; coordination within teams and departments became difficult; the time dedicated to negotiations and discussions expanded significantly, reducing in many circumstances productivity and the advancement of projects. Such adverse effects on firms and individuals were accompanied by others linked to the pandemic: companies saw their production output and turnover collapse or highly reduced almost overnight; boards of directors shifted their focus on survival rather than business development; and, uncertainty became the only certainty, both on a personal and professional level.

This paper will focus on a particular aspect of the revolution triggered by the outburst of the covid-19 pandemic: the cultural determinants of the radical shift to virtual means to conduct business discussions, negotiations, and settlement of disputes. This ânew normalâ has been commonly defined as the âZoom negotiationâ, in light of the market share that Zoom has acquired in the past months in the videoconferencing market (see Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1

Market share of videoconferencing platforms

source: Trustradius,

https://www.trustradius.com/vendor-blog/web-conferencing-statistics-trends

The global pandemic has represented a historical moment across countries and cultures. Individuals, organizations, and decision-makers in virtually every part of the globe found themselves in an unprecedented situation with significant challenges for which few of them were prepared; among them, the radical and rapid switch to virtual tools to conduct negotiations. What was one of the many options available to negotiators or parties to disputes became, in a matter of days and weeks, the only option. The impact however has not been uniform across countries. Negotiators with certain cultural traits have been more significantly impacted by the switch from real to virtual. This paper in particular will test the following hypotheses:

âHypothesis 1: the impact of covid-19 has not been uniform across cultures, even controlling for the degree of strictness of the measures adopted by national and local governments to fight the pandemic.
âHypothesis 2: the covid-19 pandemic has affected those cultures in which the construction of trust relies on personal relations and in which face-to-face meetings have a more prominent role in negotiations and dispute resolution.
âHypothesis 3: the degree to which countries will return to normality once the pandemic is over is unlikely to be consistent. Specifically, cultures which have been more deeply impacted by the switch to virtual meetings are more likely to return to pre-covid-19 negotiation and dispute resolution practices compared to cultures in which the widespread use of online negotiation has shown clear benefits.

2 Methodology

This study aims to combine existing literature and evidence on two important research areas: intercultural and intracultural differences and their impact on the behavior of negotiators, on the one side; and the effects of the means used by negotiators to conduct discussions. To capture the complex interactions of cultural and technological aspects of negotiations, this study will concentrate on certain sub-areas of the two fields: in particular, the cultural analysis will focus on the so-called âEast-West divideâ. For such purpose, with the term âWestâ, reference is made to the Huntingtonâs classification of civilizations including Western Europe and North America,¹ while with the term âEastâ, reference is made to the definition by De Blij & Muller including China, Japan, and Korea in the East Asian macro-region.²

To support the main findings of the literary review, a survey was conducted among professionals with direct experience of and exposure to cross-cultural negotiations and dispute resolution processes. A target population of 150 qualified respondents was selected to conduct the survey, of which 104 completed the survey. Respondents were selected among consultants, executives, officials, and other professionals with significant experience (i.e., >3 years) and exposure to cross-border and cross-cultural negotiations. Annex A contains an overview of the target audience. Respondents completed the survey on a strictly anonymous basis in the period between July 10 and August 28 2021.

The survey was designed to obtain both quantitative and qualitative responses. In addition to the first 12 questions used to profile the respondents and the final 4 covering the technical tools used to negotiate, the core questions (24) contained a mix of questions using a quasi-Likert scale (13), open questions in which respondents were invited to report their impressions using adjectives (3) and other multiple-choice questions (10). This was made in order to offset the problems in reliability of using Likert scales with Chinese/Asian respondents,³ and more broadly the culture-specific challenges of using surveys with Chinese/Asian respondents.⁴

3 The Zoom Negotiation

Negotiations and the resolution of disputes have historically been associated with discussions conducted in person. Over time it has become possible to conduct part of the negotiation process remotely, by correspondence, and via telegraph. It has only been since the early 2000s â due to factors such as globalisation, the accessibility of videoconferencing tools and the appearance of the internet â that notable attention has been given to the impact, on negotiations and dispute resolution, of the means of communication used to conduct the discussions. The term âe-negotiationâ has been widely used⁵ to designate any form of negotiation/discussion conducted through electronic means. An important portion of this early literature focused on the use of email to conduct negotiation.⁶ Emails however are a peculiar type of virtual negotiation in part because they only allow an asynchronous interaction among negotiators. With the widespread use of teleconferencing and videoconferencing, the gap between virtual and in-person negotiations has significantly narrowed, making analyses more meaningful.

A literature review⁷ suggests that vocal cues, visual cues, and synchronicity â all elements partially made available by videoconferencing tools â all promote more efficient outcomes by facilitating information sharing and the use of complex strategies, such as making multiple equivalent simultaneous offers. It is curious to note, however, that apparently imperceptible differences, such as a slight asynchronicity, can have an impact on the process and results of a negotiation. It has been found for example that positive answers to questions, even the simplest ones (e.g. âcan you give me a ride?â) are rated as less genuine if the respondent took more than 700 milliseconds to reply, something that in an online negotiation is almost inevitable.⁸

Empirical evidence suggests it is better to communicate in person. This assumption is confirmed by the results of the survey (cfr. Section 5), and plenty of corresponding evidence. A significant part of such evidence focuses on the cornerstone of any negotiation or conflict resolution process: trust. Trust is key to enabling cooperation,⁹ achieving integrative solutions¹⁰ and resolving disputes.¹¹ Virtually any commercial interaction has within itself an element of trust.¹² Ebner illustrates how virtual negotiations present several obstacles in the construction of trust.¹³ The absence of a physical interaction between negotiators hinders the research of mutually beneficial solutions by depriving negotiators of contextual cues, amplifying the attribution effect,¹⁴ in generating within negotiatorsâ low expectations, presenting the counterpart as a âfaceless otherâ, making it difficult for negotiators to dissociate physical distance from interpersonal distance, creating a sub-optimal form of empathy (e-empathy), and hindering the creation of the momentum necessary to finalize the discussions.

Such challenges and barriers are not only generated by psychological effects but also by âphysicalâ ones. A simple gesture such as a handshake â something that often occurs at the outset of social interactions â influences deal-making by signaling cooperative intent, increasing peopleâs cooperative behavior and affecting deal-making outcomes.¹⁵

A meta-analysis of research comparing decision making in face-to-face vs computer-mediated communication¹⁶ further supported the hypothesis that computer-mediated communication leads to decreases in group effectiveness, increases in the time required to complete tasks, and decreases in member satisfaction compared to face-to-face groups. In this regard, the use of a Zoom negotiation rather than an in-person meeting seems to negatively impact all three key objectives of any negotiation or dispute resolution process, and all the activities constituting each of such three categories, as outlined below.

Table 1.1

Negotiation objectives and covid-19 impact

Macro-objective

Activities of negotiators

Negative impact of virtual setting

Positive impact of virtual setting

I. Information

gathering

â Pre-negotiation assessment;

â Preparation of information to be obtained;

â Analysis of information/data provided by the counterpart;

â Fixation of bottom lines;

â Determination of the negotiation strategy;

â Conduct of the preliminary discussions.

â Impossibility to conduct onsite visits and physical due diligence investigations;

â Comparatively lower trust starting levels on both sides;

â Absence of âside meetings/discussionsâ to gather insightful information.

â Possibility to involve a wider range of participants;

â Possibility to organize a higher number of meetings.

ii. Behaviour

influencing

â Execution of the negotiation strategy;

â Persuasion of the counterpart;

â Submission of offers and counter-offers.

â Persuasion negatively affected by emotional and physical barriers;

â Difficulties in reading the other partyâs language and body language;

â Absence of âside meetings/discussionsâ to gather insightful information.

â Persuasion can be reinforced by repeated meetings.

iii. Situation

crystallization

â Conclusion of the final agreement;

â Enforcement of contractual arrangements;

â Renegotiations/amendment to original agreements.

â Low trust final levels on both sides;

â Difficulties in applying pressure to ensure contracts are complied with;

â Physical and emotional distance creating incentives for non-compliant behavior;

â Obstacles to judicial and other forms of enforcement.

â Possibility to organize meetings to verify the progress/execution of the agreement.

While some advantages certainly exist, they seem to be outnumbered by the disadvantages. It is therefore not surprising that Zoom negotiations or other forms of virtual settings are less effective than face-to-face meetings in reaching the objective of finding a mutually accepted agreement and/or resolving disputes. Maruca found that negotiations conducted via email have a risk of up to 50% ending in an impasse, versus only 19% in face-to-face negotiations.¹⁷

4 Multiculturalism and Virtual Negotiations

Cultural traits deeply affect negotiation and dispute resolution dynamics at various levels. The definition of culture, starting from one of its oldest forms with Cicero¹⁸ to today has attracted strong interest, with philosophers, anthropologists, sociologists, and representatives of other academic fields giving an extremely wide variety of interpretations.

One of the most cited and complete definitions is the one provided by Blumenthal, according to which culture is a:

complex (necessarily a complicated one) (1) in which a group (usually a large one) of human beings give expression to their major cultural activities, (2) that usually is quite different from any other body of functionally inter-related culture traits in which a group of human individuals give expression to most of their cultural activities, (3) that usually has a geographical area on which it predominates and (4) that is usually largely functionally independent of other similar complexes.¹⁹

Despite its age, this definition remains appropriate.

Unlike other popular definitions, such as that of Fukuyama who conceives it as an âinherited ethical habitâ,²⁰ according to Blumenthal, culture is not a static and exclusive concept but rather a dynamic, complex and constantly changing one. From this definition and other important studies, several conclusions relevant to the topic of this paper can be drawn: cultures can be divided in macro-groups based on their general affinities and common origins;²¹ affiliation to a cultural group is not exclusive, with the same individual being capable of presenting behavioral patterns belonging to more than one cultural group (such individuals identifying themselves with and showing traits of more than one culture being identifiable as multicultural); among such groups, a hierarchy is possible, with âprimary groupsâ (i.e., extensions of the family structure) and secondary belonging groups;²² although the country and culture of origin are important factors, they only contribute for a fraction of the cultural background of an individual: by way of example, country of origin explains on average only 2â12% of inter-individual variance in value hierarchies;²³ and, multiculturalism tends to be self-reinforcing: persons who have significant exposure to multicultural situations are likely to develop multiple and flexible identities, are less ethnocentric and more open to effective intercultural communication.²⁴

Note, however, that the relevance of between-country cultural differences has been challenged by a part of the literature. For example, in a study conducted by Hanel et al., within-country variability in values outweighed between-country differences, even though many of such differences could be linked to contextual factors.²⁵ Regarding the last point, Figure 1.2 summarizes the main activities of negotiators. Such activities share an important point relevant to the topic of this paper: their degree and exercise depends on the negotiation forum (i.e., in person, video, phone, email) and â more importantly â they are all deeply influenced by cultural factors.

Figure 1.2

Negotiation activities on which culture has a direct impact

Not only do cultural differences affect the behavior of negotiators ex ante but these differences also impact the way negotiators communicate in itinere. Intracultural and intercultural dyads affect, although not always in clear and distinguishable patterns, dynamic tactical exchange in negotiation processes across all different negotiation phases.²⁶ Most research on country effects on trust is based on comparing results obtained from each country separately. A limited portion of literature examines the role of trust in inter-country interactions.²⁷

Some of these studies reveal interesting results on how the background of each culture interplays: a study of the behavior of Chinese and American cross-country supply chain, for example, reveals that (i) Chinese individuals exhibit higher spontaneous trust toward U.S. partners than Chinese ones, and (ii) Chinese supply chain enjoys a larger efficiency gain from repeated interactions than a U.S. one does, as the prospect of building a long-term relationship successfully sustains trust and trustworthiness by Chinese partners.²⁸ This may appear in contrast with the idea of Chinese as a low-trust society. In reality, however, it is not how trust is spread within a society that matters but also the behavior and trust level that individuals expect from their counterparts. In this case, the findings are motivated by the fact that Chinese perceive that individuals from the U.S. are more trusting and trustworthy in general. This positive perception toward U.S. people is indeed consistent with the U.S. participantsâ behavior in forecast sharing. The difference between âEasternâ and âWesternâ negotiators has attracted a strong interest not only because of the economic importance of the exchanges between the two areas of the world but also for the depth and significance of differences between these two macro-cultures.

Starting from the outset of negotiations, with the establishment and build-up of trust, Eastern and Western negotiators differ significantly: Meyer includes the former in the definition of âcoconut culturesâ, with low initial levels of trust but a gradual opening up until soft and warm relations are established with close ties.²⁹ Most western cultures on the other side fall in the category of âpeach culturesâ with an initially friendly interaction followed by a strengthening of the relationship until reaching a hard shell of the pit protecting the real self. Huang et al. point out the challenges created by this different trust paradigm: not only is earning trust in China and Eastern cultures essential to success and complicated, due to the âcoconut skinâ, but the process of trust construction also requires entirely different psychological patterns compared to the Western culture.³⁰

Another defining element of the divide between East and West is the juxtaposition between low context vs high context cultures. This classification was introduced by Hall to distinguish between cultures in which messages are expected to be explicit, direct, and clear so as not to require knowledge of the counterpartâs background (i.e., low context) and cultures in which the context of the message is important to interpret the message (i.e., high context).³¹ Although the robustness of Hallâs classification does not seem to be supported by a strong, consistent and unequivocal literature,³² the classification of culture is relevant to the topic of this paper, as efficient communication in high context culture requires high levels of prior knowledge and long-standing relationships between speakers, unlike in low context cultures.

The number and complexity of the other cultural differences would go beyond the scope of this paper but below is a high-level overview of the main cultural traits of each culture group with respect to each of the main activities of negotiators described in Figure 1.2.

Table 1.2

Main cultural traits and virtual negotiations

	West		East
Communicating	Direct style of communication	ââ	Indirect style of communication	â
	Direct style of communication	ââ	Prominent role of the concept of âfaceâ	â
	Positive and negative comments provided in clear and straightforward wording	â	â	â
			Use of downsizing formulas	Ã
			Unclear wording;	â
	Inclusiveness	â	â	â
Persuading	Deductive reasoning as default methodology	Ã	â Inductive and deductive reasoning	Ã
	Deductive reasoning as default methodology	Ã	â Logic playing a limited role	Ã
	Logic as key element to persuade and be persuaded	Ã	â Context playing a key role in defining the dispute/matter and, as a result, to persuade and be persuaded	â
Trusting	Higher starting level of trust between the parties	â	â Lower starting level of trust between the parties	â
	Higher starting level of trust between the parties	â	â Affective type of trust, mainly based on subjective elements (prior knowledge of the counterpart, affinities, relationships, etc.)	â
	Cognitive type of trust, mainly based on objective elements (experience, context, etc.)	â	â	â
Disagreeing	Confrontation and disagreement considered as constructive elements of a negotiation	â	â Disagreement and debate considered as negative	â
	â	â	Diverging views often communicated with delay or in a fragmented, indirect way	â
	Divergences of views communicated promptly and unambiguously	â	â	â
Pressuring	Leverage as main tool to exercise pressure on the counterpart	â	Implicit and explicit threats used	â
	â	â	Time and time pressure considered as a key form of leverage	â
	Undue pressure and threats considered as a lack of respect	Ã	Time and time pressure considered as a key form of leverage	â
Deciding	Higher incidence of perception biases	â	Lower incidence of perception biases	â
	â		Hierarchical decision making	â
	â		Top-down (Japan as exception being consensual but hierarchical)	â
	Comparatively more egalitarian power structures	â
	Comparatively more consensual power structures	â
Complying	Expectation of parties complying with the principle of pacta sunt servanda	Ã	Compliance depending on circumstances	â
	Adversarial approach in enforcing contracts	Ã	Non-adversarial approach in enforcing contracts	â
	â	Ã	Lower level of litigiousness	â
	High litigiousness	â	â	â

The symbols close to the activities listed above indicate how, based on the advantages and disadvantages outlined in Table 1.1, each of the activities is positively (â) or negatively (â) impacted³³ by the use of Zoom negotiation and more broadly by the effects of covid-19 described below.

5 The Impact of Covid

How has this pre-existing picture been impacted by the covid-19 global pandemics since the first quarter of 2020? The most significant impact has been that Zoom negotiation is no longer just one of the different options to conduct negotiation and settle disputes, but has instead become the predominant, if not the only way to negotiate, mediate and arbitrate. Starting with China in January 2020, most countries worldwide adopted measures to ban or restrict regional, national and international travel. Such measures forced individuals to switch to virtual means of running businesses, conducting negotiations, and resolving disputes. The extent of such measures has varied significantly, both over time, from country to country and within countries. Throughout 2021 for example, China and most Asian countries maintained tight restrictions to both inbound and outbound international travel, while domestic travel and movement remained almost unaffected. Europe and the United States, on the contrary, took the decision to keep their borders comparatively more open, while enacting restrictions to domestic travel. During the 18 months between the eruption of the covid-19 pandemics and the finalization of this paper, the Asia-Pacific region had the highest share of destinations with a complete border closure (~70%) and Europe, on the other extreme, had the most open borders (with closures for only ~13% of destinations).³⁴ Individuals, firms, organizations, and other key business stakeholders, therefore, turned to virtual meetings to unprecedented and largely unforeseeable levels.

Such an exceptional situation has made it possible to test the limits of virtual negotiations. The terms âZoom fatigueâ or âZoom exhaustionâ have been coined to refer to the effects of excessively using videoconferencing as a tool for negotiation and dispute resolution. It has been observed for example that the frequency, duration, and intensity of Zoom meetings are associated with a higher level of fatigue, and that fatigue has been linked to negative attitudes toward the Zoom meetings and the negotiations conducted using this platform.³⁵ Bailenson identifies four main causes for such negative effects: (i) an excessive amount of close-up eye contact, (ii) the distraction caused by the fact that negotiators constantly see themselves in real time during video chats, (iii) the extensive reduction in mobility in videoconferences, and (iv) the significantly higher cognitive load in this form of discussions.³⁶

The radical shift of personal and professional balances towards remote work, virtual meetings and deals closed, or disputes settled directly from peopleâs living rooms or home offices would have been per se an unprecedented moment in the history of the world economy and human behavior.³⁷ However, the covid-19 pandemics also had major secondary effects, deeply affecting individualsâ daily lives and organizations during the past 18 months. Table 1.2 provides a high-level summary of the main such effects.

Table 1.3

covid-19 impact on organizations, individuals and negotiations

Effects on organizations

Effects on individuals

Effects on negotiations/Disputes

High impact

â Disruption of supply chains;

â Reduction in/zeroing of companiesâ turnover in many industries;

â Impossibility to deliver goods/services due to border closures and other governmental measures;

â Uncertainty becoming the only certainty and companies moving in âvisual navigationâ mode.

â Anxiety;

â Workplace becoming virtual;

â Restrictions to movements and other personal freedoms;

â Unemployment/low employment;

â Financial pressure.

â Restrictions on domestic and international travel;

â Virtual workplace making planning and preparation of due diligence investigations difficult;

â Disruption in the activities of judicial systems and other administrative services.

Moderate impact

â Pressure to reduce risk exposure and change business models;

â Border closures;

â Changes in consumer behavior.

â Loneliness;

â Reduced access to healthcare system;

â Rising inequality.

â Renegotiations of existing agreements prioritized over negotiations of new agreements/projects;

â Uncertainty over the enforcement/implementation of agreements;

â Higher anxiety of negotiators.

Low impact

â Changed peopleâs lifestyles.

â Disruption in education and effects on personal/family lives.

â Companiesâ budgeting and planning reducing resources for disputes/negotiations.

Such effects have been produced in all negotiations â domestic and cross-border, bilateral and multilateral, monocultural or multicultural. Craft et al. provide a comprehensive analysis of the impact of global pandemics on multilateral negotiations.³⁸ Many of the problems outlined by their research apply also to other forms of negotiations and dispute resolution processes. The distribution of such effects has not been homogeneous across cultures and organizations. The impact of the pandemic on individuals has varied according to such factors as gender, age, nationality, occupation, economic status, and cultural background. Focusing on the last point, the most prominent division is among collectivist and individualist cultures.³⁹ Collectivist cultures â prioritizing social order, efficiency, and directive leadership â tend to be more adaptive during a crisis, more willing to accept restrictions on individual freedoms and rights,⁴⁰ and more maladaptive as recovery becomes timely, and looseness and its associated creativity are needed.⁴¹ Historically, nations with more infectious disease threats are culturally tighter and, as a result, less innovative.

It is hardly possible to isolate the effects caused by the switch to online negotiations from the other negative effects, listed above, of the covid-19 pandemics. While, in designing the survey, efforts were made to focus the respondentsâ attention to the topic of this paper, it is undeniable that cross-contamination of effects has taken place.

6 Findings

The main questions addressed in this paper are: how has covid-19 impacted the Zoom negotiation and what are the cultural variants of such impact? Based on the elements discussed in the previous sections and the answers provided by the respondents to the 40-question survey, the following considerations can be made with respect to each of the three hypotheses made.

6.1 Hypothesis 1: âThe effects of covid-19 have not been uniform across cultures.â

As discussed in Section 4, the extent to which negotiators have been forced to rely on Zoom negotiations has not been uniform across countries and it has been largely dependent on the form of travel and movement restrictions adopted by different governments. Overall respondents from the Western countries sample have been subjected to more significant restrictions on local travel while Eastern Asian countries isolated themselves, closing international borders and leaving local movement and internal travel possible.

Eastern respondents showed a pre-existing aversion to Zoom negotiations, indicating (Q13) that prior to the pandemic they relied on in-person meetings to a larger extent than Western negotiators (68%, vs 60%) and (Q14) that they considered virtual negotiations as âsignificantly less effectiveâ in a larger number than Western respondents (28% vs 21%). These findings are consistent with the idea of Eastern cultures relying more significantly on in-person meetings.

6.2 Hypothesis 2: âCultures in which trust relies on personal relations and in which face-to-face meetings have a more prominent role in negotiations have been more heavily affected by the covid-19 pandemic.â

Trust and trust-building are core elements of any negotiation and the way in which such trust is built affects the degree to which covid-19 has impacted negotiators across cultures. As discussed in Section 3, Chinese and Eastern cultures, in general, tend to rely more significantly on affective trust as a means to create and develop business relations. This element is supported by the indications of the single main negative effect on businesses (Q30), with Eastern respondents selecting âthe impossibility/difficulty in developing new business relationsâ as the main cause even more firmly than Westerners (56% vs 42%). Such conclusions are further supported by the subjective answers to the question (Q22) on how the pandemic has impacted ongoing disputes and negotiations. The results are illustrated in Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3

Wordcloud of responses to the question âdescribe in three adjectives the effects that covid-19 and travel restrictions had on your negotiations/disputesâ

Trust and trust-building are core elements of any negotiation and the way in which such trust is built affects the degree.

6.3 Hypothesis 3 âThe degree to which countries will return to normality once the pandemic is over is unlikely to be even.â

The third hypothesis can be viewed as the most complex to test, also considering the difficulty in defining the term ânormalityâ (e.g., in Asia as of April/May 2020, companies recalled all employees to work at the office and domestic travel became possible). The term is here intended as the return to pre-covid-19 settings, with negotiators free to decide whether to conduct both domestic and international negotiations in person or via virtual means. Eastern respondents showed (Q32) a stronger desire to return to pre-pandemic negotiation and dispute resolution routine compared to Western ones (28% vs 8%), with, in the same question, Western respondents also showing more willingness to âsignificantly adaptâ their routine to the conditions experienced during the pandemic (27% vs 12% of Eastern respondents). When asked about the reason for returning to business travel and in-person meetings rather than relying on Zoom negotiations (Q34), the âstrengthening of the relations with counterpartsâ is unsurprisingly quoted as the main driver (52% for Eastern respondents and 54% for Western ones). Interestingly, âtime effectivenessâ is the third main reason chosen by Eastern respondents (12%) and least quoted by Western ones (1%). This is consistent with the idea that the Zoom negotiation is widely considered efficient by Europeans and Americans (i.e., lower costs, faster process, more free time in the agendas) while in Eastern and more in general high context/affective-trust cultures, it takes significantly more time to achieve the same results via virtual means as opposed to in-person meetings. Such desire to return to pre-pandemic routines without excessive adaptation is further supported by the adjectives described by Eastern respondents when requested (Q33) to indicate how they envisage the return to normality.

Figure 1.4

Wordcloud of responses to the question âDescribe in 3 adjectives how you envisage your post-pandemic negotiation/dispute resolution normalityâ

The two main considerations that can be made are (i) a higher concentration of negative adjectives among the answers provided by Eastern respondents and (ii) a broader focus on subject-related and object-related adjectives among Western respondents, unlike representatives of Eastern cultures who concentrated their responses on the personal elements of the post-pandemic normality. This is consistent with the view of Asian countries as âtight culturesâ and less adaptive to radical social changes.⁴²

While this study focuses on the cultural variants in negotiations, the survey shows interesting results in terms of other variables, such as gender or level of experience. With regard to gender, for example, female respondents showed a higher preference for in-person meetings (Q13) â indicating loneliness as a key downside of Zoom negotiations during the pandemic (Q30) â and are more keen to a return to in-person meetings (Q32), even though pre-covid-19 they were more open to the idea of negotiating virtually (Q14).

7 Conclusions

This study has explored in particular how the covid-19 pandemic has impacted ongoing and new negotiations and dispute resolution processes, and how such impact has varied based on cultural factors. The purpose of this study was to test how the impact of covid-19 on ongoing and new negotiations has greatly depended on the cultural traits of the participants in such negotiations. Taking Chinese and European negotiations as examples of culturally distant groups, this paper has analyzed the pre-covid-19 attitude and attitude towards a radical switch to Zoom negotiations, the way such switch was integrated in the negotiation routine of such groups throughout the pandemic and how they envisage the post-pandemic normality. The findings of this study are relevant as a first indicator of what the post-pandemic negotiation and dispute resolution practices will look like.

About a third of business travelers plan to reduce their business travel post-pandemic because teleconferencing and remote working arrangements were as effective as being in the office and traveling.⁴³ The extent of such reductions however is unlikely to be even between East and West. This is supported by anecdotal evidence: surveys among companiesâ top executives in the West confirm a significant reduction in business travels⁴⁴ while in countries such as China, the recovery of business travelers has been more robust.⁴⁵ This is also linked to factors other than the attitudes toward virtual meetings and negotiations even though the role of such attitudes seems significant. Overall, the findings can be summarized as follows.

Table 1.4

Findings

West

East

Pre-existing attitude towards the Zoom negotiation

â Limited use;

â Gradual integration into negotiation/dispute resolution routines, mainly for reasons relating to cost control and efficiency;

â Move toward Zoom negotiations considered as inevitable.

â Very limited use, mainly for international negotiations;

â Marginal integration into negotiation/dispute resolution routines, with confidentiality as the main obstacle;

â Move towards Zoom negotiations considered with caution, particularly with respect to the maximum portion of the virtual part.

Impact of Covid

â Limitations to domestic travel pushing companies toward a wider use of the Zoom negotiation;

â Strong adaptability to the Zoom negotiation;

â Long effects and high business stress levels pushing companies toward adaptation.

â Limits to international travel and rapid internal recovery limiting the use of the Zoom negotiation to international negotiations/disputes;

â Cultural traits making adaptability to the Zoom negotiation difficult for structural reasons;

â Trust creation and business development as the main reason for resuming in-person meetings.

Post-covid normality

â Hybrid system widely considered as certain;

â Changes to companiesâ travel policies already being implemented;

â In-person meetings to be considered as residual.

â In-person meetings to remain as the main form of negotiation;

â Gradual adaptation to hybrid systems.

Over the next months, with the reopening of borders â in the West first and gradually in Asia as well â it will be possible to observe the evolution of the situation and how the Zoom negotiation will be integrated in the negotiation and dispute resolution routine across cultures.

Annex A

Survey Population

Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996).

Harm J. de Blij, Peter O. Muller, Geography: Regions and Concepts (New York: Wiley, 1997).

Peter Newman, âProblems with Likert-type scales for measuring attitudes of Chinese peopleâ (working paper presented at the Academy of Marketing Conference, Gloucester, July 2004), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348806598_Problems_with_Likert-type_scales_for_measuring_attitudes_of_Chinese_people.

Melanie Manion, âSurvey Research in the Study of Contemporary China: Learning from Local Samples,â The China Quarterly 139 (September 1994): 741â765.

Janice Nadler and Donna Shestowsky, âNegotiation, Information Technology, and the Problem of the Faceless Other,â in Negotiation Theory and Research, ed. Leigh L. Thompson (New York: Psychosocial Press, 2006), 145â172. See also Gerardine De Sanctis and Peter Monge, âCommunication Processes for Virtual Organizations,â Organization Science 10, no. 6 (1999): 693â703.

Noam Ebner, âNegotiation Via Email,â in The Negotiatorâs Desk Reference, eds. Chris Honeyman and Andrea Kupfer (St Paul: DRI Press, 2017).

Victoria Medvedec and Adam Galinsky, âPutting More on the Table: How Making Multiple Offers Can Increase the Final Value of the Deal,â HBS Negotiation Newsletter 8 (2005): 4â6.

Felicia Roberts, Alexander L. Francis, and Melanie Morgan, âThe interaction of inter-turn silence with prosodic cues in listener perceptions of âtroubleâ in conversation,â Speech Communications 48 (2006): 1079â1093, https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~francisa/Articles/Roberts-etal_SpeechCom06.pdf.

Morton Deutsch, âCooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes,â in Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, ed. M.R. Jones (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1962), 275â318.

David A. Lax and James K. Sebenius, The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain (New York: Free Press, 1986).

Christopher Moore, The Mediation Process (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2003).

Kenneth J. Arrow, âGifts and Exchanges,â Philosophy & Public Affairs 1, no. 4 (1972): 343â62, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265097.

Noam Ebner, âTrust-Building in E-Negotiation,â in Computer-Mediated Relationships and Trust: Managerial and Organizational Effects, eds. L. Brennan and V. Johnson (Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing, 2007).

The attribution effect (also known as correspondence bias) is a cognitive bias, codified by Lee Ross, âThe Intuitive Psychologist And His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process,â in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 4, ed. Leonard Berkowitz (New York: Academic Press, 1977), 173â220, explaining the general tendency by people to under-emphasize situational and environmental explanations for a certain observed behavior in the other party while over-emphasizing personality-based explanations for their own behavior.

Juliana Schroeder, Jane L. Risen, Francesca Gino, and Michael I. Norton, âHandshaking Promotes Deal-Making by Signaling Cooperative Intent,â Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 116, no. 5 (May 2019): 743â768.

Boris B. Baltes et al., âComputer-Mediated Communication and Group Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis,â Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 87, no. 1 (January 2002): 156â179.

Regina F. Maruca, âThe Electronic Negotiator,â Harvard Business Review 78, no. 1 (2000): 16â17.

In the Tusculanae Disputationes, Cicero provided one of the first definitions of culture as âcultura animiâ using an agricultural metaphor for the development of a philosophical soul, understood teleologically as the highest possible ideal for human development.

Albert Blumenthal, âA New Definition of Culture,â American Anthropologist Part I 42, no. 4 (October â December, 1940): 571â586.

Francis Fukuyama, Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity (New York: Free Press, 1995), 34.

For an overview, see Jiri AndÄl, Ivin BiÄÃk, and Jan D. BlÃ¡ha, âConcepts and Delimitation of the WorldÊ¼s Macro-Regions,â Miscellanea Geographica - Sciendo 22, no. 1 (March 2018): 16â21.

Jean Claude Rouchy, âCultural Identity and Groups of Belonging,â Group 26, no. 3 (September 2002): 205â217.

Ronald Fischer and Shalom Schwartz, âWhence Differences in Value Priorities? Individual, Cultural, or Artifactual Sources,â Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 42, no. 7 (September 2010): 1127â1144.

Lily A. Arasaratnam, âA Review of Articles on Multiculturalism in 35 Years of IJIR,â International Journal of Intercultural Relations 37, no. 6 ( November 2013): 676â685.

Paul Hanel et al., âCross-Cultural Differences and Similarities in Human Value Instantiation,â Frontiers in Psychology 9 (May 2018).

Anne L. Lytle and Harold W. Willaby, âIntracultural and Intercultural Negotiations,â in IACM 2006 Meetings Paper, accessed August 10, 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.905462.

See Toshio Yamagishi et al., âComparisons of Australians and Japanese on group-based cooperation,â Asian Journal of Social Psychology 8, no. 2 (July 2005): 173â190; see also Ko Kuwabara et al., âCulture, Identity, and Structure in Social Exchange: A Web-Based Trust Experiment in the United States and Japan,â Social Psychology Quarterly 70, no. 4 (December 2007): 461â479.

Ãzalp Ãzer, Yanchong Zheng and Yufei Ren, âTrust, Trustworthiness, and Information Sharing in Supply Chains Bridging China and the U.S.,â Management Science 60, no. 10 (2014): 2435â2460.

Erin Meyer, The Culture Map (New York: Public Affairs, 2016).

Lihua Huang, Sulin Ba, and Xianghua Lu, âBuilding Online Trust in a Culture of Confucianism: The Impact of Process Flexibility and Perceived Control,â ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems 5, no. 1 (2014): 1â23.

Edward Hall, The Silent Language (Greenwhich: Fawcett Publications, 1959).

Peter W. Cardon, âA Critique of Hallâs Contexting Model: A Meta-Analysis of Literature on Intercultural Business and Technical Communication,â Journal of Business and Technical Communication 22, no. 4 (October 2008): 399â428.

Ã in case of no/low impact.

Sustainable Development of Tourism Department, âCovid-19 Related Travel Restrictions - A Global Review for Tourism,â United Nations World Tourist Organization, accessed August 15, 2021, https://webunwto.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2021-07/210705-travel-restrictions.pdf.

Geraldine Fauville et al., âZoom Exhaustion & Fatigue Scale,â Computers in Human Behavior Reports 4, no. 100119 (AugustâDecember 2021).

Jeremy N. Bailenson, âNonverbal Overload: A Theoretical Argument for the Causes of Zoom Fatigue,â Technology, Mind, and Behavior 2, no. 1 (February 2021).

Kevin M. Kniffin et al., âCOVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action,â The American Psychologist 76, no. 1 (January 2021): 63â77.

Brianna Craft et al., The impacts of COVID-19 on climate diplomacy: Perspectives from the Least Developed Countries (London: casa and iied, 2021).

Geert Hofstede, Cultureâs Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values (New York: sage, 1984).

Brian Y. An and Shui-Yan Tang, âLessons From COVID-19 Responses in East Asia: Institutional Infrastructure and Enduring Policy Instruments,â The American Review of Public Admininistration 50, no. 6â7 (July 2020): 790â800.

Michele Gelfand, Rule Makers, Rule Breakers: Tight and Loose Cultures and the Secret Signals That Direct Our Lives (New York: Scribner, 2019).

Id.

Jessica Stansbury, et al., âAnticipating the Travel Recovery: Travel Sentiment Survey Edition 2,â OliverWyman, accessed August 14, 2021, https://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2020/oct/anticipating-the-travel-recovery.html?utm_source=pr&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=global-traveler-sentiment-survey&utm_content=2020-nov&utm_id=cmp-10500-w7w3l6.

Alexander Michael Pearson, Tara Patel, and William Wilkes, ââForever Changedâ: CEOs Are Dooming Business Travel â Maybe for Good,â Bloomberg, August 31, 2021, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-08-31/will-business-travel-come-back-data-show-air-hotel-travel-forever-changed.

Guang Chen et al., âChinaâs travel sector is undergoing a nonlinear recovery: What should companies do?,â McKinsey & Company, March 26, 2021, https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel-logistics-and-infrastructure/our-insights/chinas-travel-sector-is-undergoing-a-nonlinear-recovery-what-should-companies-do.

Citation Info

Save
Cite
Email this content

Share link with colleague or librarian

You can email a link to this page to a colleague or librarian:
Email this content
or copy the link directly:

https://brill.edhh.ma/edcollchap-oa/book/9789004514836/BP000002.xml
The link was not copied. Your current browser may not support copying via this button.

Link copied successfully

Collapse
Expand

The Impact of Covid on International Disputes

Series:Â International and Comparative Business Law and Public Policy, Volume: 2

E-Book ISBN:: 9789004514836

Publisher:: Brill | Nijhoff

Print Publication Date:: 28 Oct 2022

Subjects
- International Law
  - International Law: General Interest
  - Public International Law

Front Matter

Back Matter

Metrics

	All Time	Past 365 days	Past 30 Days
Abstract Views	0	0	0
Full Text Views	1439	343	18
PDF Views & Downloads	1309	256	7

African Studies	Education	Media Studies
American Studies	History	Middle East and Islamic Studies
Ancient Near East and Egypt	Human Rights and Humanitarian Law	Musicology
Art History	International Law	Philosophy
Asian Studies	International Relations	Religious Studies
Biblical Studies	Jewish Studies	Slavic and Eurasian Studies
Biology	Languages and Linguistics	Social Sciences
Book History and Cartography	Life Sciences	Theology and World Christianity
Classical Studies	Literature and Cultural Studies

Subjects

Authors

Open Access

Product Information

Company

Contact

Chapter 1 The Rise and Impact of the âZoom Negotiationâ

Cross-Cultural Variations in Virtual Negotiations and Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemics

Abstract

1 Introduction

Market share of videoconferencing platforms

2 Methodology

3 The Zoom Negotiation

Negotiation objectives and covid-19 impact

4 Multiculturalism and Virtual Negotiations

Negotiation activities on which culture has a direct impact

Main cultural traits and virtual negotiations

5 The Impact of Covid

covid-19 impact on organizations, individuals and negotiations

6 Findings

6.1 Hypothesis 1: âThe effects of covid-19 have not been uniform across cultures.â

6.2 Hypothesis 2: âCultures in which trust relies on personal relations and in which face-to-face meetings have a more prominent role in negotiations have been more heavily affected by the covid-19 pandemic.â

Wordcloud of responses to the question âdescribe in three adjectives the effects that covid-19 and travel restrictions had on your negotiations/disputesâ

6.3 Hypothesis 3 âThe degree to which countries will return to normality once the pandemic is over is unlikely to be even.â

Wordcloud of responses to the question âDescribe in 3 adjectives how you envisage your post-pandemic negotiation/dispute resolution normalityâ

7 Conclusions

Findings

Annex A

Citation Info

Share link with colleague or librarian

The Impact of Covid on International Disputes

Table of Contents

Metrics

Metrics

Chapter 1 The Rise and Impact of the âZoom Negotiationâ

6.1 Hypothesis 1: âThe effects of covid-19 have not been uniform across cultures.â

6.2 Hypothesis 2: âCultures in which trust relies on personal relations and in which face-to-face meetings have a more prominent role in negotiations have been more heavily affected by the covid-19 pandemic.â

Wordcloud of responses to the question âdescribe in three adjectives the effects that covid-19 and travel restrictions had on your negotiations/disputesâ

6.3 Hypothesis 3 âThe degree to which countries will return to normality once the pandemic is over is unlikely to be even.â

Wordcloud of responses to the question âDescribe in 3 adjectives how you envisage your post-pandemic negotiation/dispute resolution normalityâ