USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
This week, read the More Meetings and Cost Estimate Negotiations and Problems Executing the Project section of the case study provided in W1 Project Instructions. Also review all discussion questions provided at the end of the case study document.
Based on the assigned sections (and all previous assigned sections of the case study), address the following topics:
Overcoming Resource Disadvantage
What tactics can a financially disadvantaged negotiator use to be treated on par with large organizations when their assets and resources are not as large?
How might Infosys have used such tactics in the case study?
Using Resource Application
How can an effective negotiator use resource application in terms of written material, appropriate gifts, time expectations, and political or economic considerations such as innovation and risk to “even the playing field”?
How might Infosys have used such resource application?
Negotiation can often be divided into four stages including preparation, information exchange, bargaining, and closure. Defend action steps Infosys should have taken in each stage of the negotiation case study.
In a negotiation, it is a good strategy to establish that no one is a loser in a negotiated outcome.
Assess the future consequences that might arise when someone leaves the negotiation table feeling that he or she is a non-winner.
Assess how the no one is a loser perspective does or does not impact the case study.
Justify at least five recommendations for creating positive outcomes in the case. In essence, when taking all your work in the case study to date into consideration, what are the five best practices or action steps you would suggest if you were asked to consult with the parties in the case study?
Important hint: You might find it helpful to begin each section of the paper by discussing the key themes and cues you observe. Then, do research on those key themes to both broaden and deepen your evaluation of the case and your understanding of the important issues. In the final product, about half your written evaluation of each topic should be research. About half should be application to the case study.
Recommendation for the level one headings for the body of your paper:
Overcoming Resource Disadvantage
Using Resource Application
Successful Strategies for Each Negotiation Stage
Implications for Creating Non-Winner Perceptions
Submission Details:
- Submit your evaluation in a six- to eight-page Microsoft Word document, using APA style.
- Each Covered Heading must contain 3+ credible cited sources and a conclusion summarizing talking points.
- Due by 4/21/25 at 11:30pm CST
Requirements:
1. Make certain to include in text citations from your course text in addition to your outside leadership resources within your main post. This adds credibility to your argument.
[Textbooks]:
Brett, J. M. (2014).
Negotiating Globally
, (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 9781118602614
and
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M. and Barry, B. (2014).
Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases
. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 9780077862428
2. No plagiarism will be tolerated. Must be in 7th Edition APA format with cited sources within the last 5 years.
3. No AI support, score must be 0% and less than < 10% score on Turnitin
Project: Successful Strategies
This week, read the
More Meetings and Cost Estimate Negotiations
and
Problems Executing the Project
section of the case study provided in
W1 Project Instructions.
Also review all discussion questions provided at the end of the case study document.
Based on the assigned sections (and all previous assigned sections of the case study), address the following topics:
·
Overcoming Resource Disadvantage
· What tactics can a financially disadvantaged negotiator use to be treated on par with large organizations when their assets and resources are not as large?
· How might Infosys have used such tactics in the case study?
·
Using Resource Application
· How can an effective negotiator use resource application in terms of written material, appropriate gifts, time expectations, and political or economic considerations such as innovation and risk to “even the playing field”?
· How might Infosys have used such resource application?
·
Strategies for Negotiation Stages
· Negotiation can often be divided into four stages including preparation, information exchange, bargaining, and closure. Defend action steps Infosys should have taken in each stage of the negotiation case study.
·
Non-Winner Perceptions
· In a negotiation, it is a good strategy to establish that
no one is a loser in a negotiated outcome.
· Assess the future consequences that might arise when someone leaves the negotiation table feeling that he or she is a
non-winner.
· Assess how the
no one is a loser perspective does or does not impact the case study.
·
Final Recommendations
· Justify at
least five recommendations for creating positive outcomes in the case. In essence, when taking all your work in the case study to date into consideration, what are the five best practices or action steps you would suggest if you were asked to consult with the parties in the case study?
Important hint: You might find it helpful to begin each section of the paper by discussing the key themes and cues you observe. Then, do research on those key themes to both broaden and deepen your evaluation of the case and your understanding of the important issues.
In the final product, about half your written evaluation of each topic should be research. About half should be application to the case study.
Recommendation for the level one headings for the body of your paper:
Overcoming Resource Disadvantage
Using Resource Application
Successful Strategies for Each Negotiation Stage
Implications for Creating Non-Winner Perceptions
Submission Details:
· Submit your evaluation in a
six- to eight
-page Microsoft Word document, using APA style.
· Each Covered Heading must contain 3+ credible cited sources and a conclusion summarizing talking points.
·
Due by 4/21/25 at 11:30pm CST
Requirements:
1.
Make certain to include in text citations from your course
text in addition to your outside leadership resources within your main post. This adds credibility to your argument.
[Textbooks]:
Brett, J. M. (2014).
Negotiating Globally
, (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 9781118602614
and
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M. and Barry, B. (2014).
Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases
. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 9780077862428
2.
No plagiarism will be tolerated. Must be in 7th Edition APA format with cited sources within the last 5 years.
3.
No AI support, score must be 0% and less than < 10% score on Turnitin
Wk5 Final Project Assignment Tips
Class, this week the project assignment due on
MONDAY by 11:59pm and is worth 225points.
The assignment has
FIVE discrete parts (each main section has several sub questions that need t be addressed).
Make sure to address all parts of the assignment in full expanded details with support scholarly sources
• Make sure you review the assignment details and the full expanded grade rubric to help you address all points in each section of the assignment.
• Use external credible sources to support your paper.
• Make use of APA guidelines to format you documents: effective sub headings, a title page, intext citations, full reference section.
Suggested sub headings per APA guidelines to organize and structure your paper:
Introduction
5 Recommendations for Creating Positive Outcomes.
Tactics Disadvantaged Negotiators Might Use
Resource Application to Level the Playing Field.
Successful Strategies for Each Stage of The Negotiation.
Consequences Leaving the Negotiation Table.
References
Day 7 Project Assignment Responses and Formatting
Class, each week during this course there is key Project assignment due on Day 7 of each week.
Assignments should be formatted to ensure you complete all parts and provide a logical organization and structure to enable the instructor to follow your logic and thought process.
Secondly, external research and supporting examples are expected in your responses (not the course lecture, not just your opinions, or the course textbook).
As you respond the Project Assignment make sure to reference external credible sources –as this strengthens your work. The greater the number of creditable external sources the stronger is your work.
Supporting external sources cited at the end in the reference section per APA guidelines.
By adhering to these practices, you enhance your work: demonstrate your knowledge in a substantive way and impact your grade earned. This you can do in four important ways:
1) Use the appropriate words linked to the topics for the assignment and week
2) Address directly each part of the assignment in expanded detail
3) Make use of supporting information from the case study and external sources — (through academic credible articles and web sites)
4) 3 + different credible sources for each section.
5) Format your assignment responses per APA guidelines.
Format guidelines and best practices to achieve the above:
a) Title page: Include- Assignment title, Student name, Course Name and Week, School Name, Name of Instructor
b) Make use of subheadings for each part of the assignment. This can be achieved by stated key words from the question. This will help you make sure that all sections are addressed.
d) Intext cite where information is used from sources.
c) Reference section: Sources need to be cited as per APA guidelines.
Use of Creditable Sources: Day 7 Project Assignment
To earn the maximum, score in each section, that demonstrates knowledge of the topics:
A) “exceeding the expectations” = 3 + different credible sources intext cited for each section per the rubric.
B) Sufficiently supports = use of 2 different intext cited sources per section.
C) Weakly supported credible sources used = 1 intext cited source
D) Lacked credible sources = No sources intext cited
1. Research needs to go beyond the course textbook or course lecture notes.
2. Sources published, authored, and less than 6 years old.
3. APA guidelines must be applied to intext cite information where used in the response.
Example1: A response has no intext citations but does have a reference section will be penalized in each section and graded as “Lacked credible sources” – as this demonstrates lack of APA application and potential plagiarism – as information was obtained from sources but no credit given to the authors.
Example2, the scope section can be written simply as a scope statement. However, to use information from credible sources to support the response: information can be used from sources that support scope importance, what it is, how it benefits a project, negative effects if no scope is developed.
Page 1 of 3
LEA6185_International Negotiations
© 2009 South University
Case 2.1. System Modification for Japan
by Junichi Yoshida
(Reprinted by permission of Junichi Yoshida and Infosys)
Note: This section was adapted and used by permission of the author and of Infosys.
This case study was developed by Junichi Yoshida, a Japanese Infosys engineer, for use in
internal Infosys training to illustrate cultural differences in the way business is conducted in Japan
and India. The events in the case are compiled and simplified from several different experiences
the case writer observed while working for Infosys. The case itself therefore is a fictitious event.
Background
As the broadband penetration rate in Japan increased, Nippon Tele Communication (NTC)
thought that there was a business opportunity for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service to
Japanese consumers. NTC selected the system used by American Tower Corporation (ATC), a
U.S. company, for its information technology (IT) system for this application, although it realized
that significant modifications and enhancements would be required for the Japanese context.
Infosys had worked with ATC to develop this application.
Infosys Japan thought that Infosys had a good chance of getting the opportunity to do the system
modifications and enhancements for the NTC project. Tanaka-san, a Japanese Infosys sales
manager, visited NTC in early November 2003 about bidding on the work but was told by NTC’s
head of IT that NTC was in the process of choosing Nippon Information System Processing
(NISP) to do the system modifications. Tanaka-san asked why Infosys Japan had not received a
request for proposal (RFP) for this Japanese localization work and was told there had not been
an RFP. Not ready to give up on this opportunity, Infosys asked ATC to recommend Infosys to
NTC. This tactic worked well. ATC recommended Infosys to NTC. NTC then asked Infosys to
form a team to make a proposal for the work, offering to pay Infosys for the expenses associated
with submitting a proposal.
Tanaka-san then requested that Infosys corporate headquarters (which are located in India) send
a consultant to help Infosys Japan develop a proposal for NTC. Infosys corporate was reluctant to
allocate resources for this project because no contract had been signed with NTC. After a long
teleconference between Tanaka-san and Infosys corporate, Infosys corporate decided to send a
relatively junior engineer named Sachin.
Sachin had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering from Bangalore University. He was
an expert in Java programming, and during the five years he had been at Infosys since
graduation, he had been involved in several projects. Recently, Sachin had been the technical
architect on the ATC project.
The First Meeting at NTC
Sachin was not quite ready when Yoneyama-san, an Infosys Japan project manager and
engineer, arrived at Sachin’s hotel to take him to the first meeting with NTC. They took the train,
meeting Tanaka-san, the Infosys Japan sales manager, in the NTC lobby five minutes before the
meeting was to start.
Most of the meeting was conducted in Japanese. Sachin was bored, uncomfortable because the
room was too hot (he took off his jacket), and tired from the long trip. He was asked only one
question—about how many orders the ATC system processed daily. Sachin wasn’t sure but said
10,000.
Page 2 of 3
LEA6185_International Negotiations
© 2009 South University
The Second Meeting
After the first meeting, Infosys and NTC engineers met several times, working to develop enough
information so that Infosys could estimate the costs of the desired system specifications.
Communication at these meetings was challenging. For example, at the second meeting, Sachin
had questions to which he needed answers, but he hadn’t written them down. Some discussion
was held in English, but for the most part (especially regarding technical issues), Sachin asked
each question in English and Yoneyama-san translated the question into Japanese for the NTC
engineer. Then the NTC engineer would make a call, get the answer, and pass it on to
Yoneyama-san for translation back into English for Sachin.
During this second meeting, Sachin believed that the NTC engineer was saying yes, agreeing to
most of Sachin’s qualifications and conditions even when Sachin explained that the ATC system
only processed 5,000 orders, not 10,000 as he had mistakenly said previously. When Sachin
modified his estimate, he also explained that NTC could use faster equipment and be able to
process 10,000 orders. At the end of the second meeting, Sachin orally summarized what had
been discussed and politely refused to go out for a drink with Yoneyama-san and the NTC
engineer, since he did not drink alcohol.
More Meetings and Cost Estimate Negotiations
After several more meetings and more preparation, Infosys submitted a cost estimate of
$220,000. NTC requested a price reduction, since the total cost was almost 50 percent more than
NISP’s competing proposal. Infosys objected but ultimately reduced the price by 20 percent. NTC
also requested that the time be cut from 16 weeks to 14 weeks. Although doing so would require
overlapping the design and coding phases of the project, Infosys agreed to the time reduction.
Problems Executing the Project
In the course of development, NTC invited end users to test the system and entered the issues
these users raised into the tracking system. Sachin thought most of the end-user issues were
cosmetic, since they did not block the users from using the system. However, there were far more
issues than Sachin had anticipated. Fixing them all would adversely affect the cost of the project
or the schedule or both. Sachin told this to his NTC counterpart, trying to make the point that NTC
should have frozen the requirements when the contract was agreed to. NTC’s response was that
Infosys had been doing what it wanted to do without really knowing what NTC wanted. NTC also
said that no delay in delivery was acceptable because NTC was already advertising the new VoIP
service. NTC refused to pay extra for the new work associated with solving the end-user issues.
Discussion Questions
1. What did you notice about the way the opportunity for this project came about that was
an unusual business practice for Infosys?
2. Describe the contract negotiations. In what way were these negotiations a departure from
the way you would have expected negotiations to be conducted?
3. Why do you suppose NTC accepted Infosys’s 20 percent reduction, which still made its
proposal more expensive than the other vendor’s?
4. Shouldn’t Infosys have asked for something in return for reducing its price? What might
Infosys have asked for?
5. Once NTC got a price reduction, it asked for a two-week time reduction. Infosys agreed
to that, too. Who was Infosys negotiating with? What should Infosys have done at this
stage of the negotiation?
Page 3 of 3
LEA6185_International Negotiations
© 2009 South University
6. Communication during the meetings to develop specifications was difficult. Is there
anything that Infosys could have done to facilitate communication, reduce the transaction
costs associated with developing the bid, and minimize conflict once the project was
launched? Keep in mind that translation in Japan is expensive.
7. When Sachin tried to make the point that NTC should have frozen the requirements when
the contract was agreed to, NTC responded that Infosys did what it wanted to do without
really knowing what NTC wanted. What might have led to this response?
8. Should Sachin have gone out for drinks with Yoneyama-san and the NTC engineer? Did
Sachin need to drink alcohol?
image1
2
Relationship Building
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Name
Instructor’s Name
Date
Relationship Building
Definitions of Negotiation
Negotiation is a structured interaction in which parties communicate to resolve differences and reach an agreement. Hart and Schweitzer (2020) define negotiation as “a process of back-and-forth communication designed to reach an agreement when parties have some shared and others opposed interests.” This description highlights the exchange of offers and the presence of both shared and opposing interests, but relationship-building is not. Effective communication and decision-making are crucial, but this definition emphasizes transactional negotiation rather than interpersonal aspects that affect long-term collaboration.
Another definition provided by Adinda et al. (2022) describes negotiation as “the process by which individuals or groups communicate and make decisions to resolve differences and develop agreements that govern their future interactions.” According to this definition, negotiations shape relationships throughout time. However, trust and rapport-building are not expressly stressed. The definition acknowledges the continuing of contacts beyond the agreement, but it ignores relational trust, which is crucial in many international and cross-cultural discussions.
To better reflect the role of relationships, a refined definition could be:
Negotiation is a structured communication process where parties build trust, exchange proposals, and make mutually beneficial agreements, ensuring immediate resolution and long-term collaboration.
This revision integrates relationship-building, recognizing its critical role in international negotiations. Research by Yao and Storme (2021) highlights that trust-building in negotiations has both immediate and lingering effects on the success of agreements. Trust improves negotiator satisfaction and future encounters, making it essential to collaboration and success. Furthermore, trust is typically necessary for practical talks in cultures such as Asia and the Middle East, where long-term commercial connections are valued. Negotiators can better understand relationship-building in global contacts and reach long-term agreements by expressly including it in the definition.
Social and Economic Consequences
Relationship-building is vital in international negotiations since cultural expectations impact the process. Negotiators who neglect connections risk future encounters, reputation, and financial results (Lewicki et al., 2014). Negotiations and leadership can have social and economic consequences.
Impact on Negotiation Events
Loss of Trust and Cooperation
Trust is essential for effective negotiations, especially in cultures where relationships drive business (Liu, 2024). When negotiators neglect relationship-building, counterparts may view them as unreliable or self-serving, leading to a lack of transparency and reduced willingness to collaborate. This trust crisis can hinder discussions, retract proposals, or collapse agreements before execution.
Weakened Bargaining Power and Financial Losses
Lack of rapport between negotiators might have economic effects (Hart & Schweitzer, 2020). Rapport frequently leads to better financial terms. Without trust, rivals may demand higher pricing, more onerous restrictions, or no discounts or flexible payment terms. International commerce and investment businesses that overlook relationship-building may struggle to develop long-term relationships, causing financial instability and missed possibilities.
Impact on Leadership Activities
Damaged Reputation and Reduced Influence
Leaders who do not emphasize relationship-building risk damaging their professional reputation, which can have lasting consequences. Global leaders gain credibility through trust and genuine connections (Brett, 2014). Transactional or apathetic leaders may struggle to win allies, reducing their diplomatic, corporate, or political power. Over time, this can isolate and make strategic collaborations impossible.
Reduced Employee and Stakeholder Engagement
Within an organization, leaders who fail to nurture relationships may struggle with employee retention and stakeholder commitment. According to Uka and Prendi (2021), employees who feel appreciated and linked to leadership are more driven and productive. If a leader is seen as distant or purely results-driven, morale can decline, leading to disengagement, higher turnover rates, and reduced overall productivity.
Important Indicators of Cultural Sensitivity
International negotiations need cultural awareness since various cultures value relationships, communication, and decision-making differently (Pavol & Mukthy, 2021). Understanding and accommodating these cultural differences may build trust, increase teamwork, and lead to successful agreements. Several indicators demonstrate cultural sensitivity in negotiations, both in what is observed and what is heard.
What Would Be Seen?
Adaptation to Nonverbal Cues
A culturally sensitive negotiator observes and responds appropriately to nonverbal communication, which varies significantly across cultures (Salam, 2024). In high-context societies like Asia and the Middle East, nuanced body language, facial expressions, and gestures matter. A negotiator who mirrors respectful postures makes eye contact, and adjusts gestures understands these cultural conventions. Some cultures require a forceful handshake, while others view excessive hand motions as confrontational.
Patience and Willingness to Build Rapport
In many cultures, building relationships is a prerequisite to negotiation. A culturally sensitive negotiator is patient and ready to spend time on small conversations, social contacts, and trust-building before discussing business (Sharma & Singh, 2022). For example, in Latin American and Middle Eastern cultures, rushing into negotiations without first establishing a personal connection may be seen as disrespectful or overly transactional.
What Would Be Heard?
Use of Respectful and Culturally Appropriate Language
A culturally sensitive negotiator uses language that aligns with the other party’s values and communication styles. In hierarchical cultures like Japan and South Korea, titles and honorifics matter (Kim, 2023). Speaking immediately or using first names too soon may be disrespectful. In contrast, Western cultures may value directness and efficiency.
Active Listening and Open-Ended Questions
A negotiator who demonstrates cultural sensitivity listens attentively and asks thoughtful, open-ended questions to understand the other party’s values, concerns, and expectations. “How do you typically approach agreements in your culture?” and “What would make this partnership most beneficial for you?” show a willingness to learn and adapt. Active listening, including summarizing and clarifying, shows the other person that their opinions matter.
Three Recommendations for How Leaders Might Enhance Relationship-Building
Building strong relationships in international negotiation and global leadership activities is essential for fostering trust, collaboration, and long-term success (Brett, 2014). Leaders may use numerous best practices to improve relationship-building and ensure culturally sensitive discussions.
Prioritizing Trust and Long-Term Engagement
Establishing trust is one of the most critical aspects of relationship-building in international negotiations (Basiru et al., 2023). Leaders should value honesty, dependability, and long-term relationships. Trust is crucial in high-context societies where commercial interactions last beyond transactions. Yao and Storme (2021) found that negotiating builds trust, which boosts agreement success and long-term collaboration. Leaders can strengthen their credibility and foster enduring partnerships by demonstrating consistency in actions and honoring commitments.
Adapting Communication to Cultural Preferences
Effective communication is central to relationship-building, but different cultures have distinct communication styles. Leaders should adjust verbal and nonverbal communication to match their negotiating partners’ cultures. Collectivist cultures favor indirect communication and diplomacy, whereas individualistic cultures prefer direct and aggressive communication. Wu (2025) emphasizes the significance of changing communication techniques to improve cross-cultural understanding and avoid misconceptions. Leaders who take the time to learn and practice culturally appropriate communication strategies will establish rapport more effectively and build stronger relationships.
Investing in Relationship-Building Activities Beyond Negotiation
Successful leaders recognize that relationship-building extends beyond formal negotiation meetings. Engaging in social activities, cultural exchanges, and informal gatherings can strengthen personal connections and establish goodwill. Guercini and Ranfagni (2020) found that informal encounters like shared meals and cultural activities strengthen connections and enhance negotiating results. Leaders show respect for their counterparts’ cultures and strengthen the relationship beyond the transaction by engaging in these activities.
Conclusion
Relationship-building is a crucial aspect of international negotiation and global leadership, influencing both immediate negotiation outcomes and long-term partnerships. Negotiations generally focus on communication and agreement-making but neglect trust and rapport, requiring a more holistic approach emphasizing relationship-building. Relationship neglect can result in social and economic problems, including ruined reputations, trust, broken agreements and long-term financial instability. Negotiators may strengthen relationships by recognizing cultural sensitivity, including courteous communication, active listening, and nonverbal signs. Leaders must create trust, adjust communication to cultural situations, and have meaningful conversations beyond discussions to enhance relationship-building. By adopting these tactics, leaders may increase cooperation, negotiation success, and lasting international relationships, ensuring that relationship-building remains essential to effective negotiation and leadership in an increasingly linked world.
References
Adinda, R., Barkah, C. S., & Jamil, N. (2022). Importance of Communication Process in Negotiation.
Jurnal Ekonomi, Bisnis Dan Entrepreneurship,
16(2), 132–139. https://doi.org/10.55208/jebe.v16i2.260
Basiru, J. O., Ejiofor, C. L., Onukwulu, E. C., & Attah, R. U. (2023). The Impact of Contract Negotiations on Supplier Relationships: A Review of Key Theories and Frameworks for Organizational Efficiency.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation,
4(1), 788–802. https://doi.org/10.54660/.ijmrge.2023.4.1.788-802
Brett, J. M. (2014).
Negotiating globally : how to negotiate deals, resolve disputes, and make decisions across cultural boundaries. Jossey-Bass.
Guercini, S., & Ranfagni, S. (2020). Conviviality as social practice in business relationships: concepts and insights from a case of expatriates.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
36(3), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1108/jbim-12-2018-0380
Hart, E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2020). Getting to less: When negotiating harms post-agreement performance.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
156, 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.09.005
Kim, M. (2023). Between honorifics and non-honorifics: A study of the Korean semi-honorific style and a comparison with Japanese.
Discourse Studies,
25(5), 664–691. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456231184090
Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2014).
Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases:7th Revised : edition. Mcgraw Hill Higher Education.
Liu, X. (2024). Effective Strategies for Cross-Cultural Business Negotiations.
International Journal of Global Economics and Management,
3(3), 189–199. https://doi.org/10.62051/ijgem.v3n3.24
Pavol , S., & Mukthy, S. (2021). Effective cross-cultural communication for international business.
Shanlax International Journal of Management,
8(4), 24–33. https://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:sijm&volume=8&issue=4&article=005&type=pdf
Salam, A. (2024). Business Negotiation Strategies in Cross-Cultural Contexts.
Pakistan Journal of Management & Social Science,
2(02), 80–95. https://pakistanjournalofmanagement.com/index.php/Journal/article/view/26
Sharma, P., & Singh, J. (2022).
Impact of culture on international business negotiations. Www.theseus.fi. https://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/788195
Uka, A., & Prendi, A. (2021). Motivation as an Indicator of Performance and Productivity from the Perspective of Employees.
Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society,
16(3), 268–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/mmcks-2021-0016
Wu, Y. (2025). Cultural Differences and Coping Strategies in Cross-Cultural Communication.
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 63–70. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-380-1_8
Yao, J., & Storme, M. (2021). Trust building via negotiation: Immediate versus lingering effects of general trust and negotiator satisfaction.
Group Decision and Negotiation,
30(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-020-09721-y
2
Cultural Rapport: Analysis of the NTC Case Study
Student’s name
Institutional affiliation
Course name
Professor’s name
Due date
Cultural Rapport: Analysis of the NTC Case Study
The case study reveals the major cross-cultural issues that were noticed during the business interaction between Infosys, an IT company from India and Nippon Tele Communication (NTC) from Japan. First impressions reveal cultural variations in communication, relationships, and business (Lewicki et al., 2014). These were evident during the first and second meetings when language differences, cultural expectations on business behavior, and different ways of handling relations arose as sources of conflict. Sachin, the technical expert from India, was not ready for Japanese business etiquette, whereas Japanese counterparts probably expected some relationship-building exercises that Sachin dismissed. This case illustrates how cultural differences can significantly harm international business communication and project implementation without cross-cultural management.
Continuing Issues
Picking up from the issues discussed in week one, several more cues in the week two reading give further understanding of the cross-cultural issues that are likely to affect the Infosys-NTC project.
Sachin’s Unpreparedness for Meetings
Expanding upon the information gathered in week one about the cultural differences in business practices, Sachin’s lack of preparation for the meetings means there are major differences in expectations concerning the appropriate behavior in the workplace. His delay for the first meeting and no questions for the second indicate his unawareness of the Japanese business etiquette characterized by order and proper organization. As for meetings, Japanese corporate culture is known to appreciate properly structured meetings with a clear list of topics to be discussed (Helmold et al., 2020). This unpreparedness must have eroded Infosys’s confidence with NTC, corroborating the prior hint that Japanese firms value reliability and connections over cost. Sachin’s action deviates from the Japanese culture of detailed planning, thus illustrating how cultural differences in professional etiquette can harm business partnerships.
Refusal of Social Engagement
Sachin’s refusal to join after-work drinks directly connects to week one’s identification of relationship-building differences. This rejection shows that Infosys (through Sachin) prioritized job completion, whereas NTC considered relationship building essential to company success. Japanese corporate culture values informal social meetings for creating trust and understanding that improves project execution (Chau & Nacharoenkul, 2023). When Sachin “politely refused to go out for a drink,” he inadvertently rejected an important business practice rather than merely declining a social invitation. This supports week one’s observation that Japanese corporate culture values long-term connections.
Misinterpretation of Communication Signals
The most revealing communication cue appears when Sachin believed “the NTC engineer was saying yes, agreeing to most of Sachin’s qualifications and conditions.” This misinterpretation demonstrates the fundamental difference between low-context Indian and high-context Japanese communication. According to Jenkins (2020), expressing “yes” in Japanese business means comprehension or recognition, not agreement or commitment. This misunderstanding relates to week one’s findings regarding Japan’s indirect communication style, which avoids conflict to maintain harmony.
Cultural Awareness
How a negotiator recognizes needs and concerns of both parties
A good international negotiator must be sensitive to verbal and implicit signs that show each party’s concerns. For NTC-Infosys, this requires comprehending Japan’s high-context communication style, where meaning is typically imbedded in context rather than explicit words. A skillful negotiator would use active listening, clarifying inquiries, and written summaries to assure understanding (Bhardwaj & Sharma, 2024). Additionally, they would research cultural values beforehand to recognize unstated concerns – such as how Japanese businesses value relationship-building, consensus, and harmony (wa). This explains why NTC’s concerns weren’t just technical but relational, as evidenced by their invitation for after-work socializing. Finally, competent negotiators would deliberately use local cultural liaisons like Yoneyama-san to interpret requirements, concerns, contextual subtleties, and language translation.
How A Negotiator Identifies Options and Alternatives
A skilled international negotiator identifies viable options and alternatives by first understanding each party’s priorities, constraints, and cultural contexts. A preferable strategy would be to examine Japanese corporate methods and decision-making procedures before the conference, as they value consensus-building over conflict. The negotiator should also provide culturally appropriate platforms for idea sharing, for example, understanding that Japanese negotiators might be reluctant to present alternatives that could cause someone to lose face (Bret, 2014). Additionally, utilizing private interactions with cultural intermediates like Yoneyama-san might expose unacknowledged possibilities that official gatherings will not. Finally, Finally, presenting options in writing may have helped overcome language hurdles and minimize misconceptions regarding system needs and specifications, resulting in more productive solution identification.
What a negotiator can do to understand strengths and weaknesses of both parties
To understand strengths and weaknesses in a cross-cultural negotiation context, an effective negotiator must first acknowledge their own cultural biases and blind spots. Sachin may have used pre-engagement cultural training to understand how Japanese colleagues could see his direct communication style in the Infosys-NTC issue. Methodologically, a negotiator should gather intelligence through multiple channels—formal documents, casual conversations, and third-party insights—since cultural differences affect how strengths and weaknesses are communicated. For example, Japanese negotiators may utilize quiet or subtle clues to indicate vulnerabilities. Additionally, establishing genuine relationships through events like the declined dinner invitation would have offered important informal evaluation chances. Finally, according to Rodolaki et al. (2023) negotiators should recognize that perceived weaknesses might reflect cultural differences rather than deficiencies—Sachin’s refusal of social engagements might have been interpreted as a weakness by NTC when it simply reflected cultural differences.
Conflict Management
Avoidance
In the case study, avoidance appears as a primary conflict management approach NTC representatives use. Japanese colleagues often communicate indirectly to dispute Sachin’s technical claims or ideas. This is evident when the NTC engineer seemingly agrees to Sachin’s qualifications and conditions despite potential reservations. Japanese culture values harmony (wa) and avoids direct conflict that might embarrass either side. However, this approach ultimately proved problematic as it masked real concerns that later emerged during user testing, when NTC claimed “Infosys had been doing what it wanted to do without really knowing what NTC wanted.” This avoidance ultimately deferred conflict rather than resolving it.
Accommodation
Accommodation emerges as another conflict management strategy, particularly from Infosys’s side. Sachin and the Infosys team use Yoneyama-san to translate during specification meetings instead of using better ways. Sachin adapts to the conference setting despite being “bored, uncomfortable because the room was too hot,” and sleepy. This accommodation approach continues when Infosys later agrees to reduce both price and project timeline without securing concessions in return. Accommodation might momentarily improve interactions, but it fails to solve underlying issues and typically subordinates one party’s wants, causing imbalance and animosity that hurts project progress.
Better Conflict Management Approaches
Collaborative Problem-Solving
Adopting a collaborative problem-solving approach would significantly improve outcomes by focusing on mutual interests rather than positions (Weingart et al., 2023). Instead of disputing contract terms, both parties may determine which adjustments were critical for system success against which were preferences after user testing revealed new needs. This strategy requires honest information exchange regarding technological limits, business goals, and budget limitations to generate creative solutions that meet both businesses’ primary needs. According to Brett (2014), such collaborative approaches are particularly valuable in cross-cultural settings where differing assumptions often remain unspoken.
Cultural Bridge-Building
Establishing cultural bridges would enhance conflict management by creating shared understanding of communication patterns and business norms (Ali, 2023). Culturally experienced Infosys team members might serve as liaisons who understand Indian and Japanese business procedures. These people would help Sachin realize why after-work socializing is essential in Japan and NTC grasp Infosys’s technological approach by interpreting language and culture. Lewicki et al. (2014) note that such cultural mediators can transform potential conflicts into opportunities for deeper relationship development.
Cultural Rapport Best Practices
Invest in Pre-Engagement Cultural Training
International negotiators should invest in comprehensive cultural training before engaging in cross-border business relationships (Jose & Navdeep, 2024). Beyond cultural awareness, this preparation should involve detailed study of target culture business communication patterns, negotiating approaches, and relationship expectations. Sachin at Infosys-NTC should have learned about Japanese corporate culture, high-context communication, and after-work socializing. Brett (2014) found that cross-cultural negotiators who understand individualism-collectivism and hierarchy orientation are more effective. Such training would have helped Sachin understand that denying the drink invitation was not only a personal choice but a denial of an essential relationship-building opportunity that Japanese colleagues anticipated to develop professional trust.
Establish Communication Bridges and Protocols
Developing robust communication bridges and protocols is essential for successful cross-cultural negotiations. Beyond language translation, cultural context and expectations must be translated (Sahadevan & Sumangala, 2021). Successful international negotiators use written summaries, visual aids, and confirmation methods to verify knowledge. For the NTC case, Infosys should have established clear documentation protocols for all requirements discussions, perhaps employing visual modeling techniques to overcome language barriers. Yoneyama-san should have been used more strategically as a culture interpreter rather than a linguistic translator. Effective communication bridges would include agreed-upon meeting structures, documentation standards, and explicit processes for surfacing and addressing concerns in culturally appropriate ways.
Embrace Relationship-Building Opportunities
International negotiators must recognize and embrace culture-specific relationship-building opportunities as integral to business success rather than optional social activities. Lewicki et al. (2014) found that informal trust-building precedes and facilitates corporate growth in relationship-oriented societies like Japan. Sachin’s decision not to socialize after work was a lost chance to establish common ground, identify hidden issues and foster the interpersonal trust required for project success. As stated by Fatehi and Choi (2025), international negotiators should find time and invest resources in effective relationship-building activities, such as meals in Japan, tea in Middle Eastern countries, and the like.
Conclusion
The Infosys and NTC case further prove that cultural intelligence is not a mere soft power, but a core competency for business in international negotiations. Lack of compatibility in the ways of information exchange, conflict resolution, and relationship definition negatively impacted the cooperation even with the presence of the necessary expertise. In the future, cross-cultural negotiation organizations must provide cultural training, enhance effective communication that considers language and cultural differences, and consider relationship development as a business imperative rather than a mere courtesy. Knowledge of and adaptation to the culture’s expectations in terms of relationship building and consensus and indirect communication may well be the difference between success and failure in a project in a high-context culture such as in Japan. These cultural rapport skills will distinguish between the international and culturally bound negotiators as the business world goes global.
References
Ali, F. (2023). The Relationship between Culture and Conflict: A Multidimensional Analysis.
Liberal Journal of Language & Literature Review,
1(01), 55–63. https://llrjournal.com/index.php/11/article/view/22
Bhardwaj, B., & Sharma, D. (2024). Negotiation Skills: How to Stay Stronger in Negotiation.
Emerald Publishing Limited EBooks, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83797-971-420241013
Brett, J. M. (2014).
Negotiating Globally
, (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 9781118602614
Chau, V. S., & Nacharoenkul, T. (2023). Japanese business communication practices in Thailand: tales from an electronic components manufacturer.
Management Decision,
61(8), 2467–2490. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-08-2022-1092
Fatehi, K., & Choi, J. (2025). The Cultural Context of International Management.
Springer Texts in Business and Economics, 77–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-83295-6_3
Helmold, M., Lee, C., Aleksandraviciute, A., Zakaryan, M., Filingeri, D., & Vlasova, D. (2020). Negotiations in Europe.
Successful International Negotiations, 243–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33483-3_18
Jenkins, S. (2020). Understanding the Impact of Cross-Cultural Communication Between American and Japanese Businesses.
Senior Theses, 1–28. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/senior_theses/374/
Jose, J., & Navdeep. (2024). Cultural Intelligence in International Business Negotiations: A Systematic Review.
International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology and Science,
12(2), 69–78. https://ijirts.org/index.php/ijirts/article/view/13
Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2014).
Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases:7th Revised : edition. Mcgraw Hill Higher Education.
Rodolaki, C., Barakos, G., & Hitch, M. (2023). The Role of Intercultural Differences and Challenges Faced in Negotiating Active Mine sites’rehabilitation Objectives from Africa to Europe.
The Extractive Industries and Society,
16, 101362–101362. Sciencedirect. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2023.101362
Sahadevan, P., & Sumangala, M. (2021). Effective Cross-Cultural Communication for International Business.
Shanlax International Journal of Management,
8(4), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.34293/management.v8i4.3813
Weingart, L. R., Jehn, K. A., & Krueger, K. L. (2023). Manage Intrateam Conflict Through Collaboration.
Principles of Organizational Behavior, 403–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394320769.ch20
2
Diversity and Conflict Resolution
Student’s Name
Course Name
Institutional Affiliation
Instructor’s Name
Date
Diversity and Conflict Resolution
Evaluation of the Interaction of Cultural Diversity with Conflict
The globalisation of business has prompted a more sophisticated understanding of how cultural diversity affects conflict, particularly in international negotiations. Cultural diversity—a vast range of values, beliefs, communication styles, and negotiation strategies—is rich and can cause friction in cross-border relations. According to Brett (2014), cultural differences can cause negotiation miscommunication, with one party misinterpreting assertiveness as aggressiveness or indirectness as lying. Cultural misalignments often produce conflict owing to underlying beliefs and communication frameworks that shape the negotiation environment, not just opposing interests. In collectivist cultures like Japan and China, social cohesion and indirect communication may conflict with individualism and directness in the US and Germany (Brett, 2014). Lewicki, Saunders, and Barry (2014) agree that misinterpreting non-verbal cues, tone, or negotiating pacing without cultural context can lead to conflict.
When negotiators are uninformed of Hofstede’s cultural characteristics of power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity versus femininity, these confrontations worsen. Therefore, international negotiations require both technical deal-making skills and cultural intelligence—the capacity to interpret and adjust to varied cultural signals. Recent research show that high-performing global negotiators use cultural empathy and adaptive communication to reduce cultural friction (Davaei et al., 2022). Without conscious cultural knowledge, companies risk transactional failures and foreign market brand damage. Thus, cultural variety can cause conflict if not managed well, but when understood and embraced, it can improve conversations with new views and creative problem-solving.
Important Indicators of Diversity Management
Organisations’ diversity management status can be determined by observable and experienced markers. Diversity management in high-functioning, inclusive workplaces includes visible representation of diverse backgrounds at all organisational levels, inclusive language in policies and communications, and a culture of psychological safety that encourages the open exchange of ideas regardless of culture. Diversity management success is measured by leadership commitment, inclusive recruiting, and ongoing cultural competence training (Chua et al., 2023). Leaders that model inclusive behaviour and include diversity into the strategic vision promote organisational variety. Diversity is operationalised beyond compliance when diverse personnel have equal advancement, retention, and recognition opportunities.
Without diversity management, homogenised leadership teams, significant minority turnover, and microaggressions in everyday interactions indicate a culture that undervalues diversity. Poor diversity management leads to unresolved interpersonal conflict caused by cultural misunderstanding or exclusion, according to Lewicki et al. (2014). Organisational policies that don’t allow religious or cultural observances or training programs that overlook intercultural communication skills also lack these practices. Sibiya et al., (2022) say marginalised groups typically disengage and underperform in a climate that doesn’t recognise or manage diversity. Diversity management-savvy companies engage employees, innovate, and outperform less inclusive competitors on numerous criteria. Thus, diversity management indicators are integrated in structural policies and daily experiences, demonstrating whether inclusion is a fundamental value or a neglected requirement.
Social and Organizational Consequences
Failure to handle diversity in organisations, especially international negotiations, has serious social and organisational consequences. Social alienation, disrespect, and tokenisation can harm mental health, job happiness, and performance in under-represented or misunderstood cultural groups. Without targeted inclusiveness measures, organisations risk perpetuating systemic inequalities and cultural prejudices, which lowers staff morale and public reputation. Without good diversity management, organisations experience higher turnover, lower productivity, and more conflict, which incur significant financial and relational costs. Unmanaged cultural issues in talks can disrupt relationships and project timeframes owing to miscommunication and distrust, according to Brett (2014). Failures in international contexts, where success depends on cross-cultural teamwork, can be disastrous.
Without diversity, companies miss out on market insights and consumer empathy, restricting their ability to develop and service varied populations. Due to mismanagement, diverse teams that are not properly supported or taught in intercultural dynamics often do worse in negotiations than homogeneous teams. Gomez & Bernet, (2021) found that inclusion makes diversity a performance benefit. If team members don’t feel empowered to voice their ideas, the potential benefits of diversity aren’t realised. In a global economy shaped by demographic trends and multicultural connections, an organization’s adaptability and relevance are threatened by diversity management neglect.
Capitalizing on Diversity
Organisations must consider diversity as a strategic advantage rather than a challenge to maximise its benefits in international negotiations and organisational performance. Diverse negotiation teams help create innovative, equitable agreements by bringing larger worldviews, greater cognitive resources, and more problem-solving methods. Stahl & Maznevski, (2021) found that culturally diverse teams generate more solutions and anticipate conflicts better than homogeneous teams. Brett (2014) argues that diverse negotiation teams are better at finding integrative bargaining opportunities and obtaining mutual benefits. This needs purposeful preparation: organisations must invest in cross-cultural negotiating training, implement inclusive decision-making protocols, and use cultural brokers—bicultural people who can bridge divisions.
Diverse teams also demonstrate organisational credibility and cultural sensitivity to external partners, especially in international markets where respecting local practices boosts reputational capital. Diversity challenges groupthink, stimulates debate, and fosters creativity, especially in high-stakes negotiations with complicated stakeholder interests. Inclusive, authentically listening organisations are more agile, resilient, and innovative. Fyle et al., (2021) found that organisations with the highest ethnic and cultural diversity on executive teams are 36% more profitable. Embracing and incorporating diversity into negotiation strategy and organisational procedures positions organisations for long-term success in an interconnected world.
Three Ways that Leaders Enhance Diversity Management
International diversity perception and management depend on leadership. Leaders may improve diversity management by incorporating inclusive ideals into the mission and strategy. First, define a diversity vision, then align policies and accountability to track progress. Top leaders who demonstrate inclusive behaviour and hold others accountable have a ripple effect throughout the organisation. Second, international negotiators need ongoing intercultural competency training. Beyond awareness, training should teach empathy, cultural interpretation, and adaptive communication. Lewicki et al. (2014) stress that effective negotiation requires understanding cultural frameworks that shape interests and perspectives.
Third, leaders must mentor and sponsor under-represented groups to create inclusive leadership pipelines. This guarantees varied leadership skills and shows equity commitment. Shore et al. (2018) found that inclusive leadership strategies boost innovation, retention, and market reach. Leaders that prioritise diversity management over compliance improve internal cohesion and external legitimacy, especially when working internationally. Engelsberger et al., (2021) suggest that intercultural ability is now a requirement for global leadership, not a bonus. In conclusion, diversity management and organisational goals are improved by leadership commitment, continual training, and inclusive talent development.
References
Brett, J. M. (2014).
Negotiating globally (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Chua, S. W. Y., Sun, P. Y., & Sinha, P. (2023). Making Sense of Cultural Diversity’s complexity: Addressing an Emerging Challenge for Leadership.
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,
23(3), 635–659. https://doi.org/10.1177/14705958231214623
Davaei, M., Gunkel, M., Veglio, V., & Taras, V. (2022). The influence of cultural intelligence and emotional intelligence on conflict occurrence and performance in global virtual teams.
Journal of International Management,
28(4), 100969.
Engelsberger, A., Cavanagh, J., Bartram, T., & Halvorsen, B. (2021). Multicultural skills in open innovation: relational leadership enabling knowledge sourcing and sharing.
Personnel Review,
51(3), 980–1002. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-10-2019-0539
Fyle, S. D., Dolan, K., Hunt, V., & Prince, S. (2021).
Diversity wins: How inclusion matters. McKinsey & Company; McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-wins-how-inclusion-matters
Gomez, L. E., & Bernet, P. (2021). Diversity Improves Performance and Outcomes.
Journal of the National Medical Association,
111(4), 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnma.2019.01.006
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2014).
Negotiation: Readings, exercises, and cases (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Sibiya, N., Sithole, M., Mudau, L., & Simatele, M. D. (2022). Empowering the Voiceless: Securing the Participation of Marginalised Groups in Climate Change Governance in South Africa.
Sustainability,
14(12), 7111. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127111
Stahl, G. K., & Maznevski, M. L. (2021). Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A retrospective of research on multicultural work groups and an agenda for future research.
Journal of International Business Studies,
52(1), 4–22. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00389-9
2
Project: Cultural Differences
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Name
Instructor’s Name
Date
Project: Cultural Differences
Differing Business Practices
The case study shows that there is a difference in business culture between Japan and India. One of the most significant distinctions is the attitude towards the formalization of the procurement procedures. Business relationships are important in Japan as evidenced by when Nippon Tele Communication (NTC) selected Nippon Information System Processing (NISP) directly without an RFP. This is contrary to the RFP process that Infosys expected to go through. Infosys being an Indian company was very keen on having a very competitive bidding process while Japanese companies prefer more reliance on trust and relationship rather than competition. Hukkanen (2023) revealed that due to the significance of confidence and dependability in the selection of a supplier, Japan prefers to use relationship-based contracting over competitive bidding.
Another key difference is the negotiation style. From a transactional bargaining culture, Infosys prioritized cost efficiency and outcomes. However, NTC’s approach indicated a preference for flexibility and adapting to new information, even after agreements were made. Infosys expected the project to freeze after signing the contract, but NTC refined system upgrades based on end-user input. This suggests a Japanese preference for continuous improvement and responsiveness, which clashed with Infosys’ expectation of a fixed contract scope. Japan emphasizes iterative improvements and adaptation in commercial discussions due to its high uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation, according to Ge (2023).
Cues Demonstrating Cultural Differences
One major cue indicating cultural differences is the lack of an RFP. Infosys was astonished that NTC picked NISP without a bid. Infosys expected a competitive, systematic decision, whereas Japan relies on trusted connections in business. Another cue is how NTC responded to cost negotiations. NTC approved Infosys’ 20% price reduction, even though it was still more expensive than NISP. According to Mehra (2025), Japanese corporations favor dependability and relationships over cost-effectiveness, unlike Infosys, which anticipated pricing would be the main issue. The third cue is how NTC expected continued modifications even after the contract was signed. Infosys expected a set of deliverables, while NTC insisted on flexibility, reflecting Japan’s focus on customer satisfaction and ongoing adaptability. This expectation led to tensions in project execution.
Differing Communication Styles and Structure
Communication and structural differences between Infosys and NTC were evident in how meetings were conducted. Japanese organizations’ hierarchical communication structure was crucial. Johnston and Miyamoto (2022) argue that top executives dominate approvals and negotiations in Japan’s vertical organizational hierarchy. For example, Infosys’ Sachin, who was relatively junior, was sent to lead discussions, whereas in Japan, seniority dictates authority. Mismatches in perceived significance may have eroded Infosys’ reputation. Additionally, the reliance on translation for technical discussions created inefficiencies and potential misinterpretations (Lewicki et al., 2014).
Cues Demonstrating Cultural Differences
One major cue is Sachin’s struggle with indirect communication. He misinterpreted Japanese indirectness and thought NTC agreed with his changes. Infosys expected approval or rejection, but Japan may see a “yes” as understanding. Japan’s high-context communication style uses high-context communication style, where agreement may reflect acknowledgment rather than actual consent (Levitt, 2022).
Another cue is the reluctance to discuss critical issues openly. After revealing their discontent, NTC said Infosys failed to understand their demands. According to Lin and Lou (2024), Japan’s high-context communication approach favors nuanced feedback over Infosys’ straightforward interaction.
The third cue is Sachin declining to go out for drinks. In Japan, casual meetings develop professional bonds. While Sachin did not need to drink alcohol, attending could have fostered rapport, an essential part of Japanese business culture. Infosys prioritized work over relationships.
Best Practices for Easing Cultural Tension
Relationship Building Before Business
International negotiators should invest time in building relationships before discussing contracts. Japanese businesses value trust and long-term collaborations. Companies should focus on relationship-building through casual meetings and networking events rather than formal procurement processes (Koporcic & Ivanova-Gongne, 2020). By stressing connections, Infosys might have become a trusted partner instead of a vendor.
Cultural Training for Employees
Companies engaging in cross-cultural business should provide employees with cultural training (Dominique, 2020). Sachin misinterpreted NTC’s assent as approval because Infosys was ignorant of Japanese communication techniques. Indirect communication, hierarchy, and negotiation training would assist professionals in overcoming cultural differences (Lewicki et al., 2014).
Flexibility in Negotiation and Project Execution
Flexibility is key when working in different cultural contexts. Sharma and Makhija (2024) found that adaptable business strategies and cultural intelligence improve cross-cultural negotiations by building understanding and lowering conflict. When NTC repeated revisions, Infosys assumed needs would be resolved after signing the contract, causing conflict. To ease such tensions, negotiators should anticipate evolving requirements and incorporate adaptability into agreements. Instead of resisting changes, Infosys could have negotiated phased deliverables to accommodate NTC’s iterative approach (Brett, 2014).
Conclusion
Cultural differences in business practices, communication styles, and negotiation strategies can create challenges in international business. Companies may improve cross-cultural cooperation by concentrating on relationship-building, cultural training, and flexible negotiating. These measures would have helped Infosys eliminate NTC misalignments and promote teamwork.
References
Brett, J. M. (2014).
Negotiating globally : how to negotiate deals, resolve disputes, and make decisions across cultural boundaries. Jossey-Bass.
Dominique, V. (2020). Business cultural training in a globalised economy.
Training, Language and Culture,
4(1), 33–43. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/business-cultural-training-in-a-globalised-economy
Ge, J. (2023). The Influence of Uncertainty Avoidance on Cultures and Business Practices.
Research and Commentary on Humanities and Arts,
2(2). https://ojs.scineer-pub.com/index.php/RCHA/article/view/4037/3799
Hukkanen, L. (2023). Building collaborative relationships by utilizing strategic supplier relationship management.
Lutpub.lut.fi. https://lutpub.lut.fi/handle/10024/165364
Johnston, A., & Miyamoto, K. (2022). Independent Directors and Team Production in Japanese Corporate Governance.
Asian Journal of Law and Society, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2022.22
Koporcic, N., & Ivanova-Gongne, M. (2020). The importance of Interactive Network Branding for business relationship development: insights from emerging markets.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
35(1), 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1108/jbim-10-2018-0294
Levitt, S. (2022). Intercultural Competence in International Teamwork: Understanding High-and Low-context Communication Styles.
CMAP),
2022(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.14456/cmap.2022.1
Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2014).
Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases:7th Revised : edition. Mcgraw Hill Higher Education.
Lin, H., & Lou, L. (2024). A Study on Cross-Cultural Business Communication Based on Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory.
Open Journal of Social Sciences,
12(09), 352–368. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2024.129021
Mehra, N. (2025).
Bridging Business Cultures: Japan’s Relationship-Driven Model vs. the West’s Transactional Approach. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5167932
Sharma, K., & Makhija, T. K. (2024). Bridging the Cultural Divides: The Transformative Power of Cultural Intelligence in Global Business Leadership and Negotiation.
Journal of Global Research in Education and Social Science,
18(2), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.56557/JOGRESS/2024/v18i28647
