ELECTRONIC NEGOTIATION SYSTEMS
Beyond cultural barriers or culturally bound?
ROBBERT-JAN KOK
Student nr: 1228315
University of Groningen Management and Organisation
ELECTRONIC NEGOTIATION SYSTEMS
Beyond cultural barriers or culturally bound?
Master thesis International Business & Management by Robbert-Jan Kok Student at the University of Groningen
Faculty of Management & Organisation
©Robbert-Jan Kok, 2006
The author is responsible for the contents of this thesis. Copyright of this thesis lies with the author.
Supervisor: Dr. J.A. Neuijen
Referent: Mr. Drs. H.A. Ritsema
PREFACE
This paper has been written as a Master Thesis for the Master of International Business & Management from the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. It is the final product of about four months of literature research and about five and a half years of being a student at the Rijksuniversiteit of Groningen and, unfortunately only for a short period of time, at the Copenhagen Business School. It is therefore not just a paper, but it symbolises the end of one stage, and the beginning of another. A new stage in life in which negotiating will become more important then it has ever been so far.
The choice for the topic of negotiation was made for two different reasons. Firstly out of interest for this field of study. The courses that I followed did, for me, not shed enough light on negotiating. Writing a thesis on this topic, thus, enabled me to broaden my knowledge and concentrate on the newest developments. Secondly, negotiating is something we do all our lives. We do it as a child who has an appetite for candy or wants to stay up a bit longer, we do it as an adolescent who wants to do everything the other way round, we do it as adults in our daily jobs and some might even believe that this life is a negotiation for the next.
Although we all negotiate on an almost daily basis, negotiation is of particular importance to international business. It is in this field that some of the most challenging negotiations are carried out, intercultural negotiations. The newest developments in this field are those of Negotiation Support Systems and Electronic Negotiation Systems. When reading about these developments I started to wonder whether these systems were indeed the cost saving gifts from heaven every multinational had been waiting for. Could one successfully conclude an intercultural negotiation without ever meeting? These were the first steps towards the coming to be of this paper.
would like to thank my supervisor Dr. J.A. Neuijen for being my coach and keeping me on track. I would also like to thank Mr. Drs. H.A. Ritsema for his feedback and advice. And of course I would like to thank my family for supporting me and believing in me during all these years, thank you.
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
This paper uses a meta-analysis to analyse the ability of ENS to overcome cultural differences in international business negotiations. To be able to do this, a real life system has been used to function as a representation of available ENS. The ENS SmartSettle™ was selected as a representative system because it is easily available and widely used. The focus during this project lay on the communication tool available within the system and the negotiation process adopted by the system and their applicability across cultures.
The cultural background of a negotiator was represented using some selected cultural dimensions, being: power distance, collectivism/individualism and uncertainty avoidance adopted from the Hofstede study as well as time orientation and high/low context communication as introduced by Hall. These authors have been widely quoted and the outcomes of their research have been quite influential in this field of study and others.
The consequences of these different cultural backgrounds of negotiators on their preferences towards communication and negotiation processes were compared with the characteristics of the SmartSettle™ system. This resulted in twelve hypotheses that focus on the communication tool within, the negotiations process followed by and the general capability of SmartSettle™ when applied to an intercultural negotiation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ... 3
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ... 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS... 6
1 INTRODUCTION ... 7
1.1 Outline of the paper... 7
1.2 Field of study... 8
1.3 Defining negotiation... 9
1.4 Defining negotiation systems ... 10
1.5 Defining culture... 13 2 RESEARCH DESIGN ... 16 3 METHODOLOGY... 19 3.1 Methods of observation... 19 3.2 Methods of analysis... 19 4 ANALYSIS... 21 4.1 Characterizing SmartSettle™... 21
4.1.1 The SmartSettle™ negotiation process ... 21
4.1.2 Categorizing SmartSettle™... 24
4.2 Culture... 26
4.2.1 Culture and its influence on communication... 27
4.2.2 Culture and its influence on negotiation as a process ... 33
4.3 Dealing with culture ... 38
4.3.1 Negotiation as a process ... 38
4.3.2 Communication ... 44
4.3.3 Ground rules of negotiation... 48
5 CONCLUSION... 51
5.1 Discussion ... 52
5.2 Suggestions for further research... 53
APPENDIX ... 55
1 INTRODUCTION
During the last decennia of the previous century, and especially since the 1990s, internationalisation became crucial in order for larger companies to stay alive and remain competitive (Herbig & Gulbro, 1997). This trend has continued into the 21st century and continues today. Along with this trend of internationalisation, the need to negotiate on an international level has grown as well. With the introduction of the World Wide Web (WWW), new business opportunities arose for companies throughout the world. Companies could now use, for example, Electronic Data Interchange (EDI). EDI is mainly used between trading partners in the same supply chain, and it allows for the electronic exchange of business documents via secure telecommunication links (Millman, 1998). Nowadays companies more and more use, what can be called the successor of EDI, e-commerce (Weigand, de Moor, Schoop & Dignum, 2003). This should allow company negotiators to carry out international business negotiations much more easily.
1.1
Outline of the paper
In the next paragraphs of this introduction chapter, an outline will be given of the field of study that this paper focuses on and the main issues that are dealt with and how they are operationalised. This completes the introductory chapter that should form an adequate foundation for the further reading of this paper.
The next chapter will focus on the methodology. This chapter will deal with the methods of observation and the methods of analysis. It gives more detailed information on the sources that have been used during the research, what is included in the research and what is not included.
In the analysis chapter of this paper, the sub questions shall be answered. This chapter is divided into three paragraphs. The first paragraph focuses on the SmartSettle™ system. It will give detailed information on functionalities and processes. The second paragraph describes the selected cultural dimensions and their influence on communication and the negotiation processes. The third paragraph focuses on the capability of SmartSettle™ to deal with the findings of the second paragraph. This paragraph also puts forth twelve hypotheses that give direction to future research and the empirical testing of the findings of this paper.
The last chapter covers the conclusion of the research and gives some suggestions for further research. Aside from that, the concluding chapter functions as a short summary of all that has been dealt with in the paper.
1.2
Field of study
The focus of this paper lies in the field of international business negotiations. Recent developments in this field are the introduction of support systems that can be used by negotiators to assist them during a negotiation. This paper will give an introduction into these systems and their use in international negotiations. A positive aspect of these systems is their ability to save on costs. An international negotiation can be carried out over the internet, making frequent travelling belong to the past. A major difficulty that negotiators face in international negotiations, though, is dealing with cultural differences.
with these differences has been a major issue in international face-to-face negotiations since people first started to negotiate internationally. With the introduction of electronic support systems, this face-to-face contact has become redundant and dealing with the differences in the cultural background of a negotiator was lifted to a new level.
A third field of study that plays a significant role in this paper, is that of communication, and computer mediated communication in particular. Communication plays a key role in negotiation and is heavily influenced by one’s cultural background. Currently available negotiation support systems offer only a limited amount of communication tools, which might form a critical limitation to the systems. Through the combination of the mentioned fields of study, this paper tries to shed some light over the current standings of these negotiations support systems.
1.3
Defining negotiation
Over the years, many different definitions of negotiation have immerged. A frequently quoted definition is the one given by Carnevale & Pruitt (1992). They define negotiation as “the process by which two or more parties attempt to resolve perceived incompatible goals”. Ulijn and Strother (1995) add an important factor, (mutual) benefit, to the definition of negotiation and define it as “a process in which two or more entities discuss their common issues and different preferences in order to reach an agreement or a compromise, because they see benefits in doing so”. This definition implies that parties assume they could gain through trading, which is in line with the economic models of David Ricardo and Adam Smith who state that trade can result in a mutually beneficial situation.
process, both parties (4) investigate alternatives (5) with the goal of ending up with a mutually satisfying agreement (De Moor & Weigand, 2004; Gelfand & Dyer, 2000).
Because this paper will focus on international negotiations a sixth factor can be added and negotiation can be defined as follows. Negotiating, in this paper, is a process through which two or more parties, (6) of which at least one originates from a different country, with their own individual goals that may be partially incompatible, investigate alternatives to come to an agreement or compromise with the intention to gain from this agreement or compromise.
1.4
Defining negotiation systems
Electronic tools like e-mail, videoconferencing and different sorts of support systems are taking over part of the face-to-face (FTF) process that dominated negotiations before the birth of the internet. These electronic tools have a double function within negotiations. They can be used for communication (Computer Mediated Communication or CMC) or as support tools able to aid during structuring, analysing and visualising processes of a negotiation (Ulijn & Kersten, 2004).
Very often it is thought that CMC is less effective then FTF, but Poole, Shannon and DeSanctis (1992) concluded in a study of 28 negotiation situations, that FTF negotiation was superior to other forms of negotiation in only two cases. Although FTF was superior in only two cases, Poole et al. also conclude that CMC reduces time spent in listening, is physically demanding and tiring, and encourages rigid positions and non-involvement.
trust. Deterrence-based trust is a form of calculated trust. The level of deterrence-based trust is determined by analysing the other party’s behaviour in previous negotiations. Identification-based trust is based on similarities and social identity. Negotiators with the same background, whether social, educational or cultural, are more likely to relate to one another and therefore would be able to establish trust sooner, which benefits the negotiation process.
Recent developments in the field of negotiation are Negotiation Support Systems (NSS) and Electronic Negotiation Systems (ENS). These systems are networked Decision Support Systems (DSS) allowing one system to connect with another so that negotiations can take place. A NSS supports the negotiator in communicating with the other party (CMC), but it also provides decision aids and negotiation support tools (Ulijn & Kersten, 2004). An ENS is similar to a NSS, but unlike a NSS an ENS is a fully online application which can be found on the WWW. Because of the very wide range of analytical functions, tools like NSS and ENS allow for development of more ideas and concepts, which in turn is beneficial for a negotiation process (Dickson, 1996). As stated above, trust is a very important factor in a negotiation. For a NSS or an ENS to be truly successful it, therefore, needs to be able to create a shared identity between the two negotiators. This would mean that it is not just trust in general which is very important, but identification-based trust in particular which has important meaning during a negotiation process.
that could be found in an ENS. Any ENS incorporates one or more of these identified capabilities:
1. Supports decision- and concession-making 2. Suggests offers and agreements
3. Assesses and criticizes offers and counteroffers 4. Structures and organizes the process
5. Provides information and expertise 6. Facilitates and organizes communication 7. Aids agreement preparation
8. Provides access to negotiation knowledge; experts, mediators or facilitators These capabilities will be used later on to give an in depth description of the SmartSettle™ system. Besides these eight capabilities, Kersten et al. (2004) also provide a classification of different ENS. They distinguish between passive systems, active facilitative-mediation systems and proactive intervention-facilitative-mediation systems. This classification is made using four groups of functions and activities which might be incorporated in an ENS. In order to provide a clearer picture of this classification, these functions and activities are listed in table 1, followed by a short description of the three different kinds of systems.
Insert table 1 about here
A passive system only incorporates the communication, presentation and interaction activities mentioned in table 1. Examples of passive systems are e-mail and chat programmes. They do not offer any kind of analytical tools and can therefore only receive and present information, they are not able to interpret or manipulate data.
capable of aiding the user with decision problematics, they can use user preferences and give support during the process of negotiation. These systems help overcome part of the bounded rationality problem, which negotiators face.
The last type of ENS is the proactive intervention-mediation system. These systems incorporate all of the functions listed in table 1. They are in essence active facilitative-mediation systems coupled to a knowledge-base. The systems are capable of using this knowledge base to support the negotiator with relevant tips for the situation at hand, enabling them to steer the negotiation.
1.5
Defining culture
The cultural background of a negotiator is of great influence on the way he or she works with a NSS or ENS. It influences the way they use the communication tools, the way they interpret incoming messages and the way they use the analysis tools. This has been demonstrated in several studies done by Köszegi, Vetschera & Kersten (1999, 2003, and 2004). In their 1999 study they found confirmation for the fact that culture influences a negotiation through communication. Amongst other things they also found that culture significantly influences the negotiation process and that electronic communication turns out to be a much richer medium than previously thought. A critical note is in place here though; these results come from an analysis involving negotiators from four countries, being Austria, Switzerland, Finland and Ecuador. Three out of these four countries, Austria, Switzerland and Finland, come from the same cultural clusters as identified by Hofstede (2001). Based on the analysis which will follow later on in this paper this would indeed lead to quite successful communication via an electronic medium. When more diversity was to be present in the sample, the outcome might have been rather different. The 2003 study shows similar results, and in their 2004 study on high- and low-context, significant influence was found on the value attached to analytical support. A low-context negotiator attached more value to this kind of support than did a high-context negotiator. They explained this finding by a low-context negotiator’s preference for direct and task-oriented communication.
2 RESEARCH DESIGN
In the field of (international) negotiations, the use of technology as a supporting tool is relatively new (Swaab, Postmes & Neijens, 2004). Aside from that, the focal point of precedent research on computer-mediated negotiations has been simple negotiations carried out in controlled environments. This implies that many gaps still exist in what is known about intercultural negotiations (Kersten & Noronha, 1999). Yet ENS are already available for commercial use on the internet. So without the backup of sufficient theory, how successful are these systems in supporting international negotiations? And more specifically, how successful are these systems in dealing with the cultural differences encountered in international negotiations? This paper will focus on answering this question.
This paper will try to shed some light over the current standings of ENS, using a meta-analysis, and SmartSettle™ as a representative system. The goal of this meta-analysis is to identify possible shortcomings in current ENS, generate suggestions for future development of ENS and provide a model for further research. Since this paper is based on a meta-analysis, empirical testing of any findings will be necessary. The above mentioned goals can be reached by answering the following research question:
“How capable is SmartSettle™ of coping with cultural differences encountered in international business negotiations when looking at time orientation, high- versus low-context, power distance, uncertainty avoidance and individualism versus collectivism; how
could possible shortcomings be explained and what does this mean for further research?”
unequal expectations which flow from cultural differences, this gap needs to be narrowed or, better still, closed.
It will be impossible to answer the research question straight away, and for that reason a number of investigative questions have been developed to structure the paper. The investigative questions will ensure a solid build-up of the paper and this in turn will help to come up with some clear and well backed-up hypotheses. The investigative questions will be given below.
Because the paper will use one ‘real life’ ENS, SmartSettle™, besides the available literature, the first investigative question will describe this system using the theory introduced in the literature review. The investigative question shall be the following:
“How can SmartSettle™ be characterised in terms of available literature?”
After forming a clear image of SmartSettle™ it is time to focus on culture. National cultures have been characterised in various ways over the last decennia. The next chapter will involve a meta-analysis of relevant literature. This will help to determine the relationships between several cultural dimensions and negotiations carried out with the help of ENS. Relevant cultural dimensions shall be identified and they shall be examined more closely in this chapter. It is important to make clear how they relate to and influence SmartSettle™. This will be done by introducing the following investigative question:
“How do the selected cultural characteristics influence negotiator preferences towards communication and negotiation processes and how are these preferences of influence on the
negotiation process while using SmartSettle™?”
systems and how those characteristics can be typified in terms of dealing with the identified cultural dimensions. The analysis under this investigative question needs to also identify the current shortcomings of the NSS and ENS available today. The investigative question will therefore have the following form:
“How does SmartSettle™ deal with the identified culturally influenced negotiator preferences, and can shortcomings be found?”
This chapter will put forth a number of hypotheses that are based upon the analysis in this and previous chapters. These hypotheses summarise the findings of those chapters and represent the consequences of these findings for ENS and NSS systems. They are solely based upon the comparison of the literature with SmartSettle™ that has been used as a representative system and thus need to be empirically tested. The hypotheses can therefore be used as input for further empirical research.
The main research question and sub-questions can be summarized using a conceptual model. This model depicts the relevant topics within the research and their relationships. The model is shown in figure one.
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1
Methods of observation
When looking at culture and negotiations, two different types of negotiations can be distinguished; intercultural and intracultural negotiations. Because of the higher possibility of shared interests, intracultural negotiations generally are easier to undertake. This paper will focus solely on intercultural negotiations, since it is the ability of ENS to overcome cultural differences which this paper attempts to analyse.
Negotiations via ENS can be either dyadic or multi-party. Most research on ENS negotiations covers dyadic negotiations, and this is also the kind of negotiation that research using SmartSettle™ is aimed at. Since this paper is based on a meta-analysis, the focus will be on dyadic negotiations with SmartSettle™.
3.2
Methods of analysis
Studies regarding negotiation, international negotiation, negotiation support systems, communication and culture were used in this research. Articles were collected using available databases at, and the library catalogue of the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Aside from these sources, the internet was used as well.
Articles from these sources were further studied if they related to the following keywords: cultural dimensions, ENS. Aside from that, the articles studied were the most recent studies available combined with articles from groundbreaking authors in the field. This gives good insight in the development of theory over time and it allows pioneering research in the field of negotiation support to be included.
4 ANALYSIS
This chapter will cover the answering of the three sub-questions. Each paragraph deals with a different sub-question. First the paper shall go into the characterizing of SmartSettle™, followed by a paragraph that goes into the selected cultural dimensions and their influence on negotiator preferences. The last paragraph compares the findings of the first and second which allows for the presentation of the hypotheses at the end of the chapter.
4.1
Characterizing SmartSettle™
Its developers define SmartSettle™ as a generic tool for decision-makers with conflicting objectives that wish to reach a formal agreement (www.smartsettle.com). In that way it is very broadly applicable. Not only can it be used in many different situations, there are also many ways of using the system. It can be used in individual decision making, negotiation, facilitation, mediation and arbitration (www.smartsettle.com). In this paper, the focus shall lie on the negotiation capabilities of the system.
When a negotiator wishes to negotiate using SmartSettle™, he or she needs to install a client on a pc which enables the negotiator to connect to the SmartSettle™ network. This differentiates SmartSettle™ from some other tools in the field, such as Inspire, an ENS developed by the InterNeg group. SmartSettle™ further distinguishes itself by the fact that it is commercially available, whereas Inspire mainly focuses on the investigation of cross-cultural negotiations and the teaching of negotiation courses (Kersten & Noronha, 1998).
4.1.1 The SmartSettle™ negotiation process
negotiator can use the system to its full potential. The different negotiation stages used by SmartSettle™ are displayed in figure two.
Insert figure 2 about here
During the preparation phase of the negotiation, parties (negotiations can be either dyadic or multi-party) are offered the possibility to participate in orientation and/ or training. This of course depends on the case, but also on the level of experience with the system. After this, both parties accept the Guidelines for Conduct. They can be seen as the rules of engagement in a SmartSettle™ negotiation. Finally the negotiating parties need to decide whether they will use the same facilitator, or use their own private facilitator (which will be the case during an international negotiation).
When both parties have finished their preparations, they enter the second phase in which they need to qualify their interests. The most important thing that needs to happen in this phase is the completion of the Framework for Agreement. This document is a draft of the actual agreement, with the issues that still need to be negotiated, left open. Issues could relate to for example price, quantity, time to delivery and payment. An example of a framework for agreement is included in figure three. The companies Brick & Co. and Builders Ltd. are two fictional companies that are used here to illustrate the negotiation process using SmartSettle™.
Insert figure 3 about here
starts with assigning a value (the importance of the issue) to each of the issues to be negotiated. When this is done the negotiator defines his or her satisfaction within each issue. Defining satisfaction is done with the help of satisfaction graphs which can be either measured or optioned. An example of each type of satisfaction graph is displayed in figure four.
Insert figure 4 about here
Any combination of issues represents a ‘package’. When value is added to each issue and the satisfaction graphs have been properly defined, each combination of issues will form a package that can be given a satisfaction score. This satisfaction score represents how satisfying this outcome is to the negotiator. An example is shown in figure five.
Insert figure 5 about here
With satisfaction quantified, the actual negotiation can begin. One of the two parties starts with an opening bid. The other party receives this opening bid and immediately sees the value this bid or package gives him or her. The other party reacts to this bid with an offer that better suits his or her needs.
During a negotiation SmartSettle™ is able to provide the negotiator with suggestions of packages to offer. These suggestions use the information given in the quantification stage. A suggestion made by SmartSettle™ therefore benefits both parties, bringing them closer to a mutually beneficial outcome. When both parties accept the same package, they reach a tentative agreement. Reaching this tentative agreement completes the negotiations phase.
It is possible that the tentative agreement that has been agreed upon is actually not the most optimal solution. Therefore, after the negotiation phase, there will be an optimization phase. In this phase of the negotiation, SmartSettle™ will maximize the mutual satisfaction of the parties. If both parties have quantified their wishes correctly this phase will always result in an outcome that is more satisfying for both parties than the reached tentative agreement.
When both negotiating parties are satisfied with the result from the previous phase, the Framework for Agreement can be filled out, and signed. When this is done, the negotiation is complete and the negotiator should be able to look back on a successful negotiation.
The phases in a SmartSettle™ negotiation fit the suggested negotiation phases found in the literature. Gulliver offers an eight-phase model for negotiation and states that negotiations go through at least three stages (Gulliver, 1979). These stages are negotiation preparation, the actual conducting of the negotiation and an implementation phase in which renegotiation sometimes takes place. Raiffa (2002) also suggests a three-stage model, involving a pre-negotiation, negotiation and post-settlement phase. When applying this to SmartSettle™, phases one till three fall into the first negotiation phase, phase four falls into the second negotiation phase and phases five and six fall into the third negotiation phase.
4.1.2 Categorizing SmartSettle™
capable negotiation support system. With this in mind, these eight capabilities shall be used below to further describe SmartSettle™.
An ENS should support decision- and concession-making, it should suggest offers and agreements and it should assess and criticize offers and counteroffers. SmartSettle™ does this with the help of patented optimization algorithms. The algorithms are based on negotiation theory developed by Thiessen & Loucks (1992) (www.smartsettle.com). This allows the system to give suggestions to the negotiator based on their own preferences and at the same time taking into account the preferences of the other party. The system assesses and criticizes offers and counteroffers by displaying the satisfaction level this offer or counteroffer gives the negotiator. The system itself doesn’t give any reasoning behind actions nor does it provide real tips, but each party has a facilitator who can give this sort of information and explanation.
Furthermore an ENS should structure and organize the process of negotiation. SmartSettle™ is a system that uses a very structured negotiation process. Using the above mentioned steps it makes negotiation a very structured and comprehensible activity. SmartSettle™ offers a process from training till agreement, and guides the negotiator through this process.
When it comes to providing information and expertise, SmartSettle™ itself has little functionality to offer, this is done by the facilitator. He or she is the expert in negotiation and negotiating with SmartSettle™, and can give the negotiator hints and tips if asked for. Further information on this topic will be given below.
Preparing the agreement is largely done based on the Framework of Agreement and with the help of the facilitator. The system itself is not able to create an agreement in the form of a contract, this is done by the facilitator based upon the outcome of the negotiation process. The facilitator then arranges the signing of this contract by both parties.
The last capability is providing access to negotiation knowledge, experts, mediators or facilitators. As explained, every party can get the help of a facilitator. The expert knowledge is not incorporated in the SmartSettle™ system itself, it is externalised in the form of the facilitator.
The description of capabilities given above makes it possible to categorize the SmartSettle™ system using the three classes of ENS given by Kersten et al. (2004). SmartSettle™ can be characterised as an active system. It incorporates communication, presentation and interaction tools, it helps in decision making and supports negotiators and it supports the negotiation process. These are the first three categories presented in Table 1. What was shortly mentioned above is that SmartSettle™ does not incorporate a knowledge base which can provide information and explanations. This is the reason why SmartSettle™ can’t be called a proactive intervention-mediation system. The SmartSettle™ facilitators currently fulfil the function of knowledge base.
4.2
Culture
just communication within a negotiation process. A negotiator’s cultural background, secondly, influences his or her view on negotiating and therefore influences the way a negotiation is carried out (Nadler, Nadler & Broom, 1985). These two different ways in which culture influences a negotiation will be closely examined below.
4.2.1 Culture and its influence on communication
Since negotiating with the help of an ENS is a form of CMC, it is possible to apply the general ‘sender – message – receiver’ theory. It is imperative to take a closer look at this communication process and study the influence of culture on this process during the negotiation. Culture influences this communication process in two different points, at the sender and at the receiver’s side. This matches the definition of culture given by O’Hair et al. (1997), which states that culture is of influence on the way a message is communicated, or send, and on the way that message is understood. Language plays an important role here. Language can be seen as a carrier of cultural meaning (Lau, Lee & Chiu, 2004). Speaking in another language, a person might not be fully able to successfully express him- or herself. This means that what is meant is not communicated correctly. On the receiver’s side the message might be interpreted in the wrong way, either because of the language barrier or because of the receiver’s different cultural background. This is displayed in figure six.
Insert figure 6 about here
media richness model as introduced by Daft and Lengel (1984). It can be compared with written personal information and has a moderate information richness where feedback is slow, visual cues are limited and audio cues are absent (Daft & Lengel, 1984).
Cultural models that are often associated to communication in the literature are those of Hofstede (1983) and Hall (1976). Hofstede’s study on work related value patterns involved 116.000 questionnaires and covered 50 countries. In his study, Hofstede identified four cultural dimensions (power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, and masculinity versus femininity). Later on a fifth dimension, long-term versus short-term orientation, was added to compensate for a potential western bias (Ulijn, http://fp.tm.tue.nl). This study will focus its attention on three out of five of Hofstede’s dimensions, namely: power distance, uncertainty avoidance and individualism versus collectivism. These three dimensions are chosen because of the fact that they related to communication problems (Hofstede, 2001) and would therefore be largely influential in a negotiation process. Because of the fact that these cultural factors are thoroughly examined in diverse fields of study, they would allow for a strong argumentation in this meta-analysis. It has to be acknowledged that the other Hofstede dimensions, without doubt, will have their influence on negotiation too.
involvement and the compartmentalization of time resulting in a linear time sequence (Nadler et al., 1985). A polychromic orientation towards time results in the participation of an individual in several processes which come to pass side by side.
4.2.1.1 Hofstede
Individualism versus collectivism is one of Hofstede’s dimensions, which is often associated with the communication process. It influences communication patterns in several different ways. First of all, people with a more individualist background seem to be much more open to outsiders then people with a more collectivist background. In other words, individualists do not make as sharp a distinction between the in-group and the out-group (Gallois & Callan, 1997). This initially results in more ‘open’ communication and sharing of information by members from an individualistic culture. This easier flow of information is of positive influence on trust and shared identity, which in turn is of positive influence on the negotiation process and outcome. The above does not mean that collectivists are not willing to share information and communicate openly, on the contrary. It solely implies that they won’t do so with someone they are not familiar with, an out-group person. This is why a collectivist would first want to get to know the other party. Once a relationship is established, the other party becomes an in-group member, the sharing of information is extremely easy and communication is very open. Even more open then would be the case with a negotiator from an individualist country. When a negotiator moves into the in-group he or she will not only get access to information relevant to the negotiation, but also to information about the personal life of the collectivist negotiator, the stranger becomes ‘part of the family’.
When using an ENS the above differences might result in quite different messages sent by the negotiators. Kersten, Köszegi and Vetschera (1999) found that culture does not so much as influence the amount of messages send, but primarily influences the length of the messages sent. This does not only depend on the sender’s cultural background, but also on the receiver’s cultural background. It was found that a negotiator uses the stereotype of the other negotiator’s cultural background to influence his or her communication characteristics. This could prove to be a problem when the stereotypical image turns out to be incorrect.
A link can be established between individualism/collectivism and the two different types of trust that were mentioned earlier. Since a collectivist needs to move a person into the in-group before starting to communicate openly this would imply that a collectivist focuses more on identification based trust then on deterrence based trust. For an individualist the opposite would be true. This makes the creation of a shared identity in intracultural negotiations more difficult, which in turn will influence the negotiation process and its outcome.
country decide on his or her tactics and get to the point. This makes communication at the start of the negotiation seem slow and beside the point in the eyes of the negotiator from the low power distance culture. This, thus, is of negative influence on the building of shared identity, since determination of social status comes in the way.
The level of uncertainty avoidance is the third cultural dimension that has a considerable influence on communication. Uncertainty avoidance is used to describe the extent to which a society tolerates uncertainty and ambiguity (Hofstede, http://www.geerthofstede.nl). Members from societies which score high on uncertainty avoidance expect a lot of information from the other negotiating party in order to move to the closing of a negotiation. This has its links with the in-group/out-group categorization common to collectivist societies with high power distance and high uncertainty avoidance (Gallois & Callan, 1997). This again means that a negotiator from a society with high uncertainty avoidance will need to exchange a considerable amount of (lengthy) messages before feeling confident enough to truly start negotiating. In addition, during negotiations a lot of information will be exchanged in order to minimize uncertainty. This could lead to irritation on the side of a negotiator from a society characterized by lower uncertainty avoidance.
4.2.1.2 Hall
Hall is the second author that will be used in this analysis. Firstly this paper shall deal with the influence of high-context and low-context on communication. After that the influence of the second cultural dimension introduced by Hall, time orientation, shall be examined.
Whether a negotiator originates from a low-context or a high-context society results in a different form of communicating via ENS. Low-context communication tends to be action oriented and solution minded, whereas in high-context communication meaning is inferred rather then directly communicated (Brett, 2000). Since low-context is so closely linked to individualism and high-context to collectivism, as stated above, the differences in communication are similar as well. Individuals from a high-context society tend to send much longer messages then individuals from a low-context society, and exchange more offers as well. This extensive use of the available communication channels within an ENS, can be explained by the need to establish a social context in which the negotiation is embedded (Kersten et al., 1999).
The Hall dimensions, as can be concluded from the above, have quite an extensive influence on the communication preferences of a negotiator. This in combination with the influence of the Hofstede dimensions creates a wide diversity of negotiators with different preferences towards communication during a negotiation. So although Kersten et al. (1999) found that electronic communication appears a much richer medium than commonly believed it seems highly unlikely that current ENS provide a communication tool that suits the needs of all these different negotiators, surely when this communication tool only offers text based communication.
4.2.2 Culture and its influence on negotiation as a process
The above mentioned cultural characteristics are not only of influence on the way a negotiator prefers to communicate during a negotiation. Although the influence of culture on the communication preferences has significant influence on the way a negotiation is carried out, culture has another way in which it influences negotiating behaviour; it influences the way a negotiator sees the negotiation process as a whole. In their book ‘Getting to yes, negotiating agreement without giving in’, Fisher and Ury presented four ground rules that every negotiation process should follow. These rules shall be introduced below, after which the influence of the above-mentioned cultural dimensions on negotiation as a process shall be examined.
4.2.2.1 Ground rules of negotiation
The position a negotiator takes is not necessarily a correct representation of his or her interests, making it more difficult to reach a satisfying outcome. Thirdly, a negotiator should generate multiple alternatives before a final decision is made. Doing this stimulates creativity and the chance for a mutually beneficial outcome. Finally, objective criteria should be used during a negotiation.
Although these four rules might seem to make a lot of sense, they do not necessarily do so to everyone. These rules were introduced by two American authors and therefore represent the American (high individualism, medium power distance and low uncertainty avoidance) culture (Hofstede, 2001). This means these rules might not apply to international business negotiations. The differences in cultures result in different points of view on negotiating which means completely different sets of rules will be used. What is objective to one negotiator, might not be to another and form a cross-cultural point of view would be subjective (Hofstede, 2001).
4.2.2.2 Hofstede
particular importance for a collectivist negotiator. It is crucial to become in-group members before an outcome can be realised, which is of much less importance to an individualistic negotiator. This in all probability also has to do with the two different kinds of trust as introduced by Paulson & Naquin (2004), which were identified earlier. An individualist might be more comfortable with working with deterrence-based trust, while a collectivist prefers, or even needs, identification-based trust.
The level of power distance also has its reflections on the rules surrounding negotiations. Power distance has a direct influence on the second rule of negotiation as drawn up by Fisher and Ury (1991). Hofstede (2001) argues that this rule is only applicable to cultures where power distance is relatively low. Higher power distance cultures link negotiation positions to power issues and sacrifice interests to maintain a power position, which is considered to be more important.
as long as the negotiation is moving towards a satisfying result (Adair, Okumara & Brett, 1998). High power distance negotiators are more likely to use power in international negotiations since there is no direct clarity on relative status of the negotiators, so this status is determined using power (Brett, 2000).
This use of power in the first place follows from a lack of shared identity. But more importantly, it might keep negotiators from successfully creating a shared identity during the negotiation. Using power is hardly ever a good tool to bring parties closer to one another on a relational level. In an international negotiation between a high power distance and a low power distance negotiator or two high power distance negotiators, where the negotiating parties are unfamiliar with each other, the use of an ENS will, based on the above, lead to difficulties during the negotiation process.
Uncertainty avoidance is of influence on the third rule for negotiation Fisher and Ury (1991) introduced. Using this rule is only possible in low uncertainty avoidance cultures, since looking for new options that raise mutual gain means walking down new roads. And it is precisely this walking down new roads that is not done in cultures that are high on uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2001). This makes it more difficult to fully use an ENS as SmartSettle™ as well. First of all, it might be very difficult for a negotiator from a high uncertainty avoidance culture to use such a system in the first place, since it is a completely new way of negotiating with which the negotiator is unfamiliar. Secondly, using the system to optimize a negotiation outcome, meaning that the negotiator at that point gives control of the negotiation to the ENS, might be even more difficult or even out of the question.
a lot to do with trust, and in particular the two different types of trust dealt with earlier. To build up the necessary level of trust, a negotiator from a risk-averse culture will either need lots of information to create deterrence-based trust, or a solid relationship which results in identification-based trust. Salacuse (2004) suggested that a risk-taking negotiator, when faced with a risk-averse negotiator, should try to not rush a negotiation process, should set up rules for the negotiation process, should provide his or her counterpart with sufficient information, should focus on building a relationship and create trust, and should negotiate the deal step by step instead of all at once. The risk taking negotiator, in this case, adapts to the situation to create a shared identity and a favourable negotiation climate, giving the other party enough space to move.
4.2.2.3 Hall
The cultural dimensions introduced by Hall, high- versus low-context communication and time orientation, also have an influence on how a negotiator feels a negotiation process should be carried out. Low-context cultures promote the use of directness in negotiations and are therefore more explicit. This results in faster negotiations that get to the point and skip as much ‘unnecessary’ rituals as possible. High-context negotiators are much more indirect and would use more implicit forms of communication.
The time orientation of a negotiator has great influence on the negotiation process. Where a monochromic negotiator prefers a well structured negotiation process that deals with one issue at the time, a polychromic negotiator looks at multiple issues at once. This might result in what a monochromic negotiator would call ‘interruptions in the negotiation process’ and would leave the monochromic negotiator to wonder if things will ever get done. Another difference comes to play here, negotiators from monochromic cultures, like Americans, are known to be impatient when it comes to negotiators, and this is happily exploited by negotiators from more polychromic countries. When negotiating with an ENS where negotiators are separated from each other this ‘stalling’ of the negotiation process is even easier, which could lead to annoyance at the side of the monochromic negotiator.
4.3
Dealing with culture
The above analysis has shown that the cultural influence on negotiations, and negotiations with an ENS, could be quite significant indeed. The relationship between culture and the expectations a negotiator has when it comes to ENS, can hardly be denied. So how well can SmartSettle™ be used in truly international business negotiations? Is it just as user friendly for someone with a different cultural background than its US inventors? These are important questions that need to be answered to analyse the true capabilities of ENS available today. Below the processes of SmartSettle™ and the communication tool within SmartSettle™ will be compared with preferences of negotiators with different cultural backgrounds. This comparison will result in several hypotheses that can be used for future research.
4.3.1 Negotiation as a process
culturally influenced view on negotiation, which in this case would be a reflection of US culture. This high level of structuring can be linked to a monochromic time orientation used in the US culture. Leaving little space to deviate from the standard negotiation process programmed into the SmartSettle™ system might be a shortcoming to negotiators from more polychromic cultures.
The predetermined negotiation process results in the signing of a contract that very specifically states what is agreed upon. Working with such detailed contracts is very typical to low-context cultures according to Goldman and Rojot (2003). This characteristic of SmartSettle™ can therefore also be a reflection of US cultural characteristics. This also is in line with the findings of d’Iribarne (1998), who ascribes the need for detailed contracts to the need for fairness in the US culture. All this results in the fact that SmartSettle™ might in fact not be as universally applicable as one is made to believe. A negotiator with a high-context background might not at all like the fact that SmartSettle™ focuses on the building of such a detailed contract.
The negotiation process followed by SmartSettle™ has a strong focus on issues. The issues to be negotiated are determined and given value before the negotiation begins and the negotiation itself focuses on finding the optimal combination of issues for each party. According to the reasoning of Hofstede (2001) given earlier, this might be difficult to do for a negotiator from a high power distance culture, since they focus on power positions and they would sacrifice their view on issue value in order to keep their power position.
Looking at power distance, two other implications were identified, being the handling of conflicts and the view of power in negotiations (Brett, 2000). The negotiation process within SmartSettle™ works best when the two negotiating parties are authorized to act at will and do not have to ask permission from their superiors to make certain decisions. In a low power distance culture this can be realized, but following the findings of Brett (2000), this would be difficult for a high power distance negotiator. He or she is stimulated to consult those higher in status or hierarchy before deciding upon a certain course of action. Secondly, a high power distance negotiator has a strong need to know the social or hierarchical status of its counterparty. Since this is not necessarily known in a SmartSettle™ negotiation, this negotiator would prefer to use power in order to determine the status of its counterpart. It is exactly the use of power that could be limited by the Guidelines of Conduct that needs to be agreed upon by both parties before negotiation can take place. So based upon the above, it is very plausible that negotiating with SmartSettle™ is more accessible for low power distance negotiators than it is for high power distance negotiators.
functionality, but what if a negotiating party doesn’t want new options? A high uncertainty avoidance negotiator might not like the fact that a computer program is determining what is best for him or her. In fact it is doubtful that he or she would choose to negotiate using a system like SmartSettle™ in the first place. It would mean walking down a completely new road when it comes to negotiating, with added risk caused by the fact of never even necessarily meeting the other negotiating party. This rationale would imply that a system like SmartSettle™ is not very likely to be used in high uncertainty avoidance cultures because of a negotiation process that is build from a low uncertainty avoidance point of view.
4.3.1.1 Hofstede and Hall
Taking all the above into consideration, it would seem that the SmartSettle™ process of negotiation has indeed followed a structure that is common to US negotiators, but is not so common for negotiators with a totally different cultural background. This can be illustrated using some of Hofstede’s (2001) cultural clusters. Three of his cultural cluster diagrams are relevant here. First of all the uncertainty avoidance versus power distance diagram, secondly the individualism versus uncertainty avoidance diagram and thirdly the individualism versus power distance diagram. All three shall be used below to illustrate the above mentioned shortcomings of a system like SmartSettle™ for negotiators from countries that are culturally different then the US.
Insert figure 7 about here
In this diagram the US can be found in the small to medium power distance/weak to moderate uncertainty avoidance quadrant. It is clustered together with South Africa, The Netherlands, Australia, Norway and New Zealand. Following from the analysis the SmartSettle™ system would most likely appeal to negotiators from this quadrant, which also includes Denmark, Sweden, Ireland and Great Britain. One can draw a horizontal and a vertical line through the starting point, the USA. When a country is moving further away, to the right, from the vertical line, it is likely that a negotiator from that country has more problems with SmartSettle’s™ focus on issues, the use of power in the negotiation and has less freedom to act. When a country is moving further away, down, from the horizontal line, it is likely that a negotiator from that country has more problems with accepting SmartSettle™ as a negotiation tool and following the ‘advice’ the system gives.
It is also possible to combine power distance with individualism. The level of individualism influences the negotiation approach used by a negotiator and the level of trust he or she needs. Putting these two dimensions into a diagram results in a picture as can be found in figure eight which is displayed below.
Insert figure 8 about here
remaining within the small to medium power distance/individualistic cluster problems are expected to be relatively small, however moving out of the quadrant into the collectivist part of the diagram would cause some more problems. The influence of power distance is still similar to the situation described above.
When combining individualism with uncertainty avoidance, the third diagram is formed. When the two dimensions are combined in a diagram the picture as displayed in figure nine is formed.
Insert figure 9 about here
In this diagram the US is clustered together with Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand, Canada and The Netherlands. Together with Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Norway and South Africa they are situated in the weak uncertainty avoidance/individualist quadrant. The influence of moving toward more collectivist countries and countries that have a stronger uncertainty avoidance has already been described above. What can be said about these three diagrams is that certain countries are consequently placed in the same cluster or quadrant of the diagrams. These are Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Norway, The Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Great Britain and Australia. These countries also happen to be relatively low-context countries with a monochromic time orientation. The above results in the following hypotheses on the use of SmartSettle™, or any ENS for that matter, that could be tested in future research projects.
Hypothesis 2: it is to be expected that negotiators who originate from a culture which is characterised by low power distance are able to relate significantly better to the strong focus on issues within SmartSettle™ then negotiators with a cultural background which is characterised by high power distance.
Hypothesis 3: it is to be expected that negotiators who originate from a culture which is characterised by a low level of uncertainty avoidance are able to relate significantly better to the innovative and explorative character of SmartSettle™ then negotiators with a cultural background which is characterised by a high level of uncertainty avoidance.
Hypothesis 4: it is to be expected that negotiators who originate from a culture which is characterised by a monochromic time orientation are able to relate significantly better to the structured way in which SmartSettle™ approaches a negotiation then negotiators with a cultural background which is characterised by a polychromic time orientation.
Hypothesis 5: it is to be expected that negotiators who originate from a culture which is characterised by low-context communication are able to relate significantly better to the detailed contracts build with SmartSettle™ then negotiators with a cultural background characterised by high-context communication.
4.3.2 Communication
problems during international negotiations. How this influences the effectiveness of SmartSettle™ in an international negotiation shall be described below.
A large shortcoming of a narrow communication channel is that it is hard to get a lot of information across in a relatively short timeframe. This causes significant trouble for high-context negotiators. As became clear in the above analysis, a high-high-context negotiator needs to send longer messages and make significantly more offers to get his or her point across. A low-context negotiator will have much less trouble working with this form of communication since his or her need to establish a social context is much lower. This would imply that the communication tool incorporated in SmartSettle™ is less effective in high-context cultures than in low-context cultures.
Although SmartSettle™ works with ‘packages’ representing different combinations of issues, instead of working out each issue on its own, when discussing the issues, it is likely that a monochromic negotiator would prefer discussing one issue at a time, while a polychromic negotiator might want to discuss all the issues at once. This leads to communication problems which are not very easy to solve using only an email-like communication tool. This because of the simple fact that email communication is a very time consuming process in which misinterpretation is a common problem. Incorporating a tool that not only supports asynchronous communication but also synchronous communication based on writing, voice or even video might benefit the communication process, but difficulties probably still remain since this is even the case in a face-to-face conversation.
to the in-group? The only method available to a collectivist negotiator would be sending many very lengthy messages which are seen as off-topic by a more individualist negotiator. This feeling is strengthened by the fact that an individualist negotiator would prefer directness while a collectivist would prefer using indirect language. When this leads to tensions between the two parties, things get even more difficult to solve the issues.
The fact that negotiating parties are unfamiliar with each other in combination with the narrow communication channel might also cause problems when it comes to determining social status. This is not very important to a low power distance negotiator, or might not have seen important to the developers of the SmartSettle™ system, but it is to a high power distance negotiator. This leads to the same lengthy and seemingly off-topic messages as those sent by a collectivist negotiator trying to create a social context. This does not only slow down negotiations, but it would also lead to irritations with a low power distance negotiator.
And again, a similar situation occurs in a negotiation between a high and a low uncertainty avoidance negotiator. High uncertainty avoidance cultures need a lot of detailed information before engaging in a business relationship. Delivering this kind of information is a very time consuming process when using the SmartSettle™ communication tool. This tool is quite capable in the eyes of its low uncertainty avoidance developers, but others might not agree at all.
4.3.2.1 Hofstede and Hall
Using the above and the cultural clusters of Hofstede (2001), a similar analysis as carried out above can be used to show that the communication tool within SmartSettle™ might be quite sufficient in the eyes of its US developers, but has quite some shortcomings for negotiators with a different cultural background.
Moving to the right of the vertical line would mean that negotiators would start sending longer messages in order to determine social status. When moving away, down, from the horizontal line negotiators are more and more tempted to send longer messages in order to lower uncertainty. In figure eight power distance and individualism are combined. When moving away from the USA, up along the individualism axis, negotiators again are tempted to send longer messages in order to try and create identification-based trust and move the other party into the in-group. Opposite to the more individualistic cultures who prefer to send direct and short messages. Following from figure nine, the same can be said about the countries that are consistently found in the same quadrant. They are low-context and monochromic countries that prefer to send short and direct messages, they are expected to have little difficulty in relating to the SmartSettle™ communication tool. Many issues that arise during a SmartSettle™ negotiation between two parties from a different culture might originate from trust and the difficulty to create a shared identity. The above results in a second set of hypotheses that relates to the communication possibilities offered by the SmartSettle™ system.
Hypothesis 6: it is to be expected that negotiators who originate from a culture which is characterised by individualism are able to get to know the other party on a satisfying level significantly sooner while using the narrow communication tool within SmartSettle™ then negotiators with a cultural background which is characterised by collectivism.
narrow communication tool within SmartSettle™ then negotiators with a cultural background which is characterised by high power distance.
Hypothesis 8: it is to be expected that negotiators who originate from a culture which is characterised by a low level of uncertainty avoidance are able to gather a satisfying amount of information significantly sooner while using the narrow communication tool within SmartSettle™ then negotiators with a cultural background which is characterised by a high level of uncertainty avoidance.
Hypothesis 9: it is to be expected that negotiators who originate from a culture which is characterised by a monochromic time orientation are able to discuss issues on a significantly more satisfying level while using the narrow communication tool within SmartSettle™ then negotiators with a cultural background which is characterised by a polychromic time orientation.
Hypothesis 10: it is to be expected that negotiators who originate from a culture which is characterised by low-context communication are able to communicate a satisfying level of information significantly easier while using the narrow communication tool within SmartSettle™ then negotiators with a cultural background characterised by high-context communication.
4.3.3 Ground rules of negotiation
the person or the relationship and a lot of focus on the issue or issues to be negotiated. This means that the first ground rule is met. Before starting the actual negotiation a negotiator quantifies his or her satisfaction, which should be a representation of ones interests. Of course it is always possible to cheat a little bit here, but in essence the second ground rule hereby has been met as well. Before ending the negotiation it is possible to let the system come up with suggestions for packages, presenting the negotiator with multiple options which could lead to the same satisfaction, and after reaching a tentative agreement, the system can optimize the outcome and presents even more options. Hereby the system meets the third of the four ground rules as well. The use of objective criteria of course is up to the negotiators themselves when they build the framework for agreement. It is possible though that the facilitator stimulates looking for these objective criteria. The fact remains that the SmartSettle™ system largely follows four ground rules of negotiation that are very culturally dependent. They are built on US cultural beliefs which are characterised with the cultural dimensions mentioned in the aforementioned hypotheses. When one is negotiating with someone who does not support these rules this could negatively influence a negotiation, and it would be very difficult for the SmartSettle™ system to counteract. This observation results in two more hypotheses as stated below.
Hypothesis 11: it is to be expected that a negotiation via SmartSettle™ between negotiators who are individualistic, have a weak uncertainty avoidance and score low on power distance will result in significantly better outcomes than a negotiation via SmartSettle™ in which one or both of the negotiators do not match these characteristics.
5 CONCLUSION
Based on the above, the influence of culture in electronic negotiations cannot be denied. The studying of the selected Hofstede dimensions and the Hall dimensions presented some wide gaps between the ways negotiators from different cultures prefer to carry out a negotiation. In this paper those differences were found in preferences towards communication and the view of negotiation processes. Resulting from the analysis, it appears to be a reasonable statement that the SmartSettle™ system was designed with the cultural values of US negotiators in mind which clearly had its reflections on the negotiation process and the communication tool incorporated in the SmartSettle™ system. This could provide difficulties for negotiators with a different cultural background. As shown, negotiators originating from a non US-culture, or a non US-like-culture present different preferences towards a negotiation process and communication.
A key role is played by trust and shared identity. Negotiators differ in the level of trust and shared identity they require to be present during a negotiation, and building trust and shared identity could turn out to be quite difficult when SmartSettle™ is the only tool at your disposal. Because of the cultural differences and the limited communication capacity of the system the building of trust and shared identity would prove to be a very time consuming process, with a high potential for misunderstanding resulting in annoyance and possible failure of the negotiation. This would mean that a negotiation could fail before the actual negotiation even started.
in different ways in different cultures, but little research has been done to determine their true influence on negotiations using negotiation support systems.
The SmartSettle™ system in its current form seems incapable of overcoming the cultural differences that could exist between two negotiators. The system is too much bound by the cultural background of its developers and its communication tool provides to narrow a communication channel to compensating for this “shortcoming”. This keeps the system from successfully creating a shared identity which is known to be an important prerequisite in international negotiations. The system is expected to work well in negotiations between those with a US, or culturally similar, background, but problems will most likely surface in negotiations in which at least one of the negotiators has a cultural background that is different then that of the US.
Something that needs to be kept in mind though is whether it will be at all possible to develop a system that matches the expectations of every negotiator worldwide. This would certainly demand a high level of flexibility of the system and the possibility of configuring the system to ones own preferences, while still enabling the systems to communicate with each other without any problems enabling optimal communication between the two, or more, negotiators.
