pure.au.dkpure.au.dk/portal/files/53807883/bp13.docx · web viewin the business world, ......

Department of Business Administration

Jonas Justesen

Student Number: 403854

BSc Business Administration and International Management

Supervisor: Ditte Mølgaard Mathiasen

The Effects of Culture on Negotiations

Between Danish and Korean Businesspeople

Bachelor Thesis

Aarhus University, School of Business and Social Sciences

of 50

1

May 2013

AbstractThe purpose of this thesis was to investigate whether culture has an effect on negotiations between

Korean and Danish businesspeople. Trade between the two countries has risen remarkably in recent

years, and a stable future business relationship between the two countries is to be expected. This

means that more and more Danish and Korean businesspeople will negotiate with each other.

In order to link theory with empirical research, a methodological framework was first established.

It was decided to approach research through a constructivist paradigm. Moreover, it was decided to

rely on qualitative research for the empirical research, more specifically a case study. The case

study revolved around the personal negotiation experiences of four businesspeople, three Danish

and one Korean. In-depth interviews were conducted with each of them in order to evaluate whether

theory was in alignment with their experiences.

The theory used in the case study is contained in a theoretical framework. This consists of theories

about culture, negotiation, and the interrelation of the two concepts. The concept of culture is

reviewed using the pioneering theories of Hofstede and Hall, with supplements of some newer work

of Adler. In general, culture is established as something measurable that varies across nations, and it

is defined as a complex whole consisting of values, behavior, and symbols inherent to a national

group.

The concept of negotiation is reviewed from a theoretical standpoint, with emphasis on negotiation

behavior and the influence of culture on this.

The empirical research showed that culture has a direct, visible, and significant effect on negotiation

behavior of Danish and Korean businesspeople. Korean negotiators were found to be overall less

confrontational, more concerned about relationship-building, and more distributive in their

negotiation behavior. Danes were found to be overall very direct in their communication and

confrontation behavior, while also being short-term oriented compared to their Korean counterparts.

of 50

2

It was concluded that much as theory predicted, culture has a major impact on negotiation behavior.

This was true for the behavior of Korean and Danish businesspeople in negotiations between the

two as well.

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION 6

PROBLEM STATEMENT 7

DELIMITATION 7

STRUCTURE 8

2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 8

3. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK 8

PARADIGMS 9

QUALITATIVE BUSINESS RESEARCH 10

CASE STUDY RESEARCH 11

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN 12

RESEARCH TOPIC 12

RESEARCH QUESTIONS 13

DATA COLLECTION 14

DATA ANALYSIS 14

EVALUATION 15

4. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 16

4.1 CULTURE 16

of 50

3

CULTURE DEFINED 16

EMIC AND ETIC APPROACHES 19

HOFSTEDE’S SIX DIMENSIONS OF NATIONAL CULTURE 20

POWER DISTANCE (PDI) 21

INDIVIDUALISM VS. COLLECTIVISM (IDV) 22

MASCULINITY VS. FEMININITY (MAS) 24

UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE (UAI) 24

LONG-TERM VS. SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION (LTO) 25

INDULGENCE VS. RESTRAINT (IVR) 26

CRITIQUE OF HOFSTEDE’S DIMENSIONS 27

HALL’S DIMENSIONS OF CULTURE 28

HIGH AND LOW CONTEXT 28

MONOCHRONIC AND POLYCHRONIC TIME 30

CULTURE IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS NEGOTIATIONS 31

4.2 NEGOTIATION THEORY 32

THE NATURE OF NEGOTIATION 32

NEGOTIATION FUNDAMENTALS 33

DISTRIBUTIVE AND INTEGRATIVE NEGOTIATION 34

THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURE ON NEGOTIATION 35

5. COMPARING DANES AND KOREANS 36

CULTURAL VALUES 37

COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR 38 of 50

4

NEGOTIATION STYLES 38

6. EMPIRICAL RESULTS 39

THE INTERVIEWS 39

CONFRONTATION, RESPECT, AND HIERARCHY 41

RELATIONSHIP-BUILDING 42

INFORMATION SHARING 44

INFLUENCE 44

REFLECTIONS 45

7. CONCLUSION 45

LIMITATIONS 47

IDEAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 47

8. REFERENCES 48

9. APPENDIX 50

of 50

5

1. Introduction

South Korea, officially Republic of Korea, and Denmark established their first diplomatic relations

in 1959 (http://sydkorea.um.dk/en/ 2013). The two countries did however share an important

relationship already before that year. When the North Korean communist forces attacked South

Korea in June, 1950, Denmark provided humanitarian aid to the allied forces in South Korea in the

form of the hospital ship MS Jutlandia. The ship was since made famous to all Danes in 1986, when

Danish singer Kim Larsen wrote a hit song praising the ship’s efforts in the war. The help has not

been forgotten by South Korea either, and an exhibit honoring the ship and its crew can be found in

the War Memorial of Korea in Seoul today. Since the hardships of the Korean War in 1950s, the

Republic of Korea has had an amazing development. It had in fact become the world’s 15th largest

economy by 2012, despite having a lower income per capita than that of Ghana only 60 years earlier

(Jeon, 2008). And even though its communist brother to the north, whom it is technically still at war

with, has gathered most of the media’s attention in recent time, South Korea has become more and

more popular in the West, including in Denmark. In fact, exports from Denmark to Korea have

risen by more than 50 percent in the last ten years, and South Korea is today the third largest market

in Asia for Danish exports (Regeringen, 2012). In 2011, the EU and South Korea entered into a free

trade agreement, and since then the Danish government has realized the major potential of the

Korean market, making it an official government goal to increase exports of goods and services to

Korea, as well as to attract Korean direct investments in Denmark.

As it shall be seen in this thesis, the extent of culture reaches far into international business, and it

is especially important when international businesspeople negotiate. Danish and Korean

businesspeople are no exception to this, and with the increased Danish-Korean business relations of

today, it seems likely that more and more companies from both countries will encounter cultural

differences when dealing with each other. It might very well prove essential, how individuals from

these companies manage cultural differences, when a deal needs to be negotiated, or a dispute needs

to be resolved. This thesis will therefore aim at gaining insights into the effects of cultural

of 50

6

differences in business negotiations between Danes and Koreans. The importance of cultural

awareness when negotiating across cultures can simply not be overstated, as Adler (2008) puts it,

“effective cross-cultural negotiation is one of the most important global business skills a manager

can possess” (p. 226).

Problem Statement

This thesis will attempt to offer insights into the cross-cultural aspect of Danish-Korean business

negotiations with the overall problem statement:

How does culture affect negotiations between Korean and Danish businesspeople?

The motivation for choosing to study business negotiations between Danes and Koreans stems from

an exchange semester I recently concluded (2012) in Seoul, South Korea. The country, culture, and

the people immediately fascinated me, and being a Danish national as well as a business student this

naturally sparked my interest in Danish-Korean business relations. Moreover, some of my long-time

favorite fields within business administration have been negotiation theory and international

management.

Delimitation

There are several important delimitations to be made for this thesis. First and foremost, culture will

be defined rather narrowly as national culture. As the authors I use agree, culture is indeed a

complex phenomenon that exists on many levels. Reducing the concept to national culture is rather

simplistic, but it has its advantages when for instance the goal is to study its relation to international

business negotiations.

Negotiation theory is without a doubt also a multifaceted matter, and some simplifications of for

instance the definition of negotiation have been made.

In regards to methodology and the empirical study, I have limited my focus to a few unique

individuals’ experiences with negotiations between Danes and Koreans. This of course makes it of 50

7

difficult to generalize the findings to a broader business perspective, however, as I shall comment

on later, the aim of qualitative research is not generalization of findings, but understanding of them.

Structure

This thesis is structured into three overall parts. First, a methodological framework for the entire

research process is established. Second, a theoretical framework is constructed in order to review

important concepts of culture and negotiation, and to guide the empirical research. Lastly, the

empirical findings will be presented and discussed.

2. Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all the people involved in my work with this thesis.

First and foremost my supervisor Ditte Mølgaard Mathiasen, for her guidance and advise

throughout the writing process.

I would like to thank Morten Bryde Hansen of Lundbeck for his participation in my interview. As

he is currently residing in Singapore, the interview was done over Skype at a rather late and

inconvenient time for him due to the time difference with Denmark. I am much grateful that he took

the time to talk with me.

I would also like to thank Lau Diderichsen of FOSS Analytical for his participation in an interview.

FOSS and Lau Diderichsen were so kind as to invite me to their Danish headquarters for the

interview.

I would also like to thank René Fich Jespersen of Alfa Laval Aalborg and Mr. Myeong Do Lee of

Alfa Laval Korea for their participation in two interviews. I was so fortunate as to be invited to Alfa

Laval Aalborg’s headquarters in Aalborg when both René Fich Jespersen and Mr. M. D. Lee were

there and had the time to talk with me.

of 50

8

3. Methodological Framework

In order to examine the negotiation behavior of Korean and Danish businesspeople in negotiations

between the two, a methodological framework needs to be established. Methodology is sometimes

referred to as the philosophy of methods, and according to Silverman (2005) methodologies can be

defined broadly as quantitative or qualitative, or narrowly as e.g. case study or grounded theory (in

Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). The aim of methodology is to say how we can produce practical and

valid knowledge about an issue (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). The purpose of a methodological

framework is therefore always to describe how a chosen problem can be studied (Eriksson &

Kovalainen, 2008).

The methodological framework of this study includes a brief presentation of the philosophical

concept of paradigm, an introduction to qualitative research and case study research, and finally

the research design for the empirical research I conducted. The empirical part of the thesis is based

on a case study, which is primarily qualitative in its methodological nature, although not

exclusively.

Paradigms

The natural scientist Kuhn (1970) originally developed the concept of paradigm specifically for the

natural sciences (in Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). He defined a paradigm as “the set of practices

that define a scientific discipline during a particular period of time” (in Eriksson & Kovalainen,

2008, p. 16). Even though Kuhn did not think paradigms could exist in the social sciences, the term

is widely used in these today, including in business research (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). Within

the social sciences, the term paradigm has come to be defined as “a world view or a belief system

that guides researchers in their work” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994 in Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008, p.

16). According to Eriksson & Kovalainen (2008), a paradigm aims to answer the question of what

“methodological models that relate to a scientific discipline during a particular period of time” (p.

13). Guba and Lincoln (1994) identified four major paradigms that frame research in the social

sciences: positivism, postpositivism, critical theory, and constructivism (in Eriksson & Kovalainen,

2008).

of 50

9

Positivism is based on the belief that scientific knowledge is created through the verification of

hypotheses (Guba & Lincoln, 2005).

Postpositivism relies on the falsification of hypotheses to produce scientific knowledge (Guba &

Lincoln, 2005).

Critical theory holds that knowledge is produced through the inquiry into contradictions in existing

theory, and that the aim of science is to criticize and transform prevailing theories (Guba & Lincoln,

2005).

Finally, the paradigm of constructivism is based on the belief that knowledge is produced when

science investigates how individuals construct and make sense of their world (Guba & Lincoln,

2005). According to constructivists the aim of science is to create an understanding of the world

rather than explanations of it (Guba & Lincoln, 2005).

Guba & Lincoln (2005) argue that all of the four paradigms compete to be the dominant paradigm

of choice in qualitative research (in Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). Whichever paradigm a business

researcher relies on will determine how they direct their research (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). In

this thesis I shall choose to work from the constructivist paradigm, which focuses on the individual,

and challenges the idea that universal claims about the world can be made (Eriksson & Kovalainen,

2008). The consequence of working through the contructivist paradigm will be the assumption that

the foundation of all scientific knowledge in the social sciences is the understanding of human

actions (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). Due to this assumption I have emphasized and directed my

attention to interpretation of the actions of Danish and Korean businesspeople when they negotiate

across each others’ cultures, i.e. how they act and why. In order to study this I have chosen a

qualitative research approach.

Qualitative Business Research

Within the social sciences, including business research, quantitative research dominates most

scientific work (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). For this reason, qualitative research is often

described in contrast to quantitative. Quantitative research deals with the explanation of things,

of 50

10

hypothesis-testing, and statistical analysis (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). Qualitative research on

the other hand deals with interpretation and understanding of things (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008).

In practice, quantitative research in the social sciences focuses on explaining a small number of

common characteristics across many research subjects in order to prove general validity (Hansen &

Andersen, 2000). Qualitative research on the other hand aims at a detailed and holistic analysis of a

small number of research subjects and their many characteristics, and disregards general validity

(Hansen & Andersen, 2000). Although qualitative research has been regarded inferior to

quantitative by business scholars, Eriksson & Kovalainen (2008) argue that qualitative research can

indeed produce valid knowledge for the business field, and that it should be regarded as neither

superior nor inferior to quantitative research. Silverman (2005) has pointed out that a limitation to

quantitative research is that it cannot adequately explain the social and cultural construction of its

own statistical variables (in Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). For example, it is arguably a difficult if

not impossible task to statistically explain and quantify the phenomena of culture, albeit this has

certainly not discouraged scholars from doing so (Hofstede, 1997).

Eriksson & Kovalainen (2008) argue that “qualitative business research gives a researcher an

opportunity to focus on the complexity of business-related phenomena in their contexts” (p.3). They

add that it can also “provide a critical and reflexive view about the social world of business and its

core processes” (p. 3). I have chosen the qualitative research approach for the abovementioned

reasons. I believe that with the time and resources available to me, I can best study the negotiation

behavior of Korean and Danish businesspeople by looking at a few research subjects, and then try

to understand their experiences by comparing them with what literature and theory says about

culture and negotiation. The overall aim of my empirical research will therefore be to gain insight

into the real-life behavior of Korean and Danish businesspeople when the two negotiate with each

other. This will be done through a case study.

Case Study Research

Eriksson & Kovalainen (2008) define a case study as:

“A mostly qualitative research approach which studies one or several cases (people,

organizations, processes) holistically and in their social, economic and cultural

contexts” (p. 303). of 50

11

They further note that case studies are very popular in business research because of their ability to

present complex business issues in an accessible and down-to-earth format (Eriksson & Kovalainen,

2008). Yin (2003) defines a case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary

phenomenon within its real-life context” (p. 13). He further argues that case study research is an

appropriate approach to “how” and “why” research questions.

Stoecker (1991) works with two ways of doing case study research: intensive and extensive (in

Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). Intensive case study designs focus on understanding as much as

possible from a single or a few cases, while extensive designs focus on comparing several cases

(Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008).

I have chosen to conduct my empirical research through an intensive case study. The focus will be

on relating theoretical concepts with my empirical investigations. It is important to remember that

the aim of intensive case studies is not to produce knowledge that can be generalized to other

contexts, but instead to understand and explore the unique case (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008).

3.1 Research Design

The following paragraphs will present the overall plan for my empirical research. It is in essence an

overview of the choices I have made regarding what to study, how to study it, and how to evaluate

it.

Research Topic

According to Eriksson & Kovalainen (2008), the most important thing when choosing a research

topic is “researchability”, meaning whether or not it is possible to research the chosen topic. They

argue that the most straightforward way to determine this is to look at the existing literature about

the topic. I have defined my research topic both broadly and narrowly. In the broad perspective this

thesis is about cross-cultural negotiation. More specifically, or narrowly defined, the research topic

is business negotiations between Danes and Koreans.

of 50

12

The term cross-cultural negotiation is the product of the two topics culture and negotiation. As a

research topic, culture stems from anthropology (Tylor, 1871), while negotiation theory is its own

topic. Negotiation occurs in almost all aspects of social life, and negotiation theory is therefore

present within many fields, such as political science, law, and business studies (Lewicki et al.,

2010). In this thesis I have focused on both negotiation and culture from a business perspective in

order to effectively narrow down the otherwise very wide topics.

There is a good amount of literature about culture that can be used in a business perspective. I have

found the works of Hofstede (1997; 2010), Hall (1990), and Adler (2008) to be the most useful.

These authors all have in common that they have made efforts to dimensionalize and conceptualize

culture, which makes the topic more accessible to scholars who want to use culture in relation with

some other topic. Moreover, their work has made it possible to categorize and distinguish national

culture from each other, which is essential when examining the cultural differences of Danes and

Koreans.

As for negotiation theory, in connection with business studies, I have chosen to rely on the works

of Lewicki et al. (2010), Fisher et al. (1992), Thompson (2009), and Brett (2001). These works have

in common that they introduce negotiation theory in an easy and understandable way, making them

fit to work with for the novice negotiator. They also contain advanced elements of negotiation

theory, and put that theory into different contexts as well as practical perspectives.

For the topic of cross-cultural negotiation all of the abovementioned authors are reused, and the

work of Tan & Lim (2004) is added. All of the used literature aims at briefly describing culture and

its impact on international negotiations, which fits the purpose of this thesis.

In order to briefly profile Danes and Koreans from a more practical view, the works of Lewis

(2006) and Katz (2007) have been used. Lewis has in his work made a reference guide to the

cultural characteristics of over 70 major countries in the world based on in-depth analyses of each

country, including Denmark and Korea. Katz has in his work, based on years of international

experience, made a reference guide to the negotiation principles and tactics of more than 50

countries, including Denmark and Korea.

Research Questions

of 50

13

Research questions define the issues one wishes to explore more precisely, and they are paramount

as they drive the entire research project, including the choice of methods and theoretical frame

(Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). I have chosen the following overall research question to explore the

matters of my interest:

How does culture affect negotiations between Korean and Danish

businesspeople?

To answer this overall question I have found it necessary to first answer several sub-questions:

How do Danish and Korean businesspeople experience negotiating with each

other?

How do the negotiation behaviors of Danish and Korean businesspeople

compare with each other in negotiations between the two?

Data Collection

The primary data source for answering the research questions above was four qualitative interviews.

The major advantages of interviews are that they are an efficient and practical way of collecting

data, while also providing a way to see peoples’ experiences from their point of view (Eriksson &

Kovalainen, 2008). The interviews were guided and semi-structured and based on mostly open

questions. In this kind of interview the collected data is somewhat systematic, while the interview is

informal and pleasant, which I found to be an advantage (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008).

I chose to approach the interviews from what Silverman (2005) calls an “emotionalist” approach

(in Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). This means that I regarded the interviews as a pathway to the

interviewees’ authentic experiences (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008).

The interviews were recorded and are in the appendix. For the analysis of the data I have translated

and transcribed the excerpts from the interviews that I found most important.

Data Analysis

of 50

14

Yin (2003) proposes three general strategies for analyzing empirical data in case studies: relying on

theoretical propositions, thinking about rival explanations, and developing a case description.

The first strategy is the most preferred among case study researchers. It suggests that a researcher is

guided in his analysis by the theoretical propositions that already exist within the research topic.

The second strategy is to construct and test rival explanations for what is observed in the empirical

data, a strategy which is most useful when theoretical propositions are scarce within the chosen

research topic. The final strategy is to develop a description of the case study evidence, but this

strategy is mostly regarded as a less preferred alternative.

I have chosen to use the first strategy, which means relying on theoretical propositions. I will

therefore aim at gathering theoretical concepts from pre-existing literature and try to relate these to

my empirical findings.

Yin (2003) also works with four different analytic techniques for studying empirical data in singe-

case studies: pattern matching, explanation building, time-series analysis, and logic models.

I have chosen the first technique since Yin (2003) argues that this is one of the most desirable

techniques in case study research. The technique includes finding patterns in the collected data and

then comparing these to theoretical propositions. I shall in my analysis therefore mainly attempt to

locate behavior of Korean and Danish negotiators that could be described by cross-cultural

negotiation theory.

Evaluation

Overall, Eriksson & Kovalainen (2008) write that a case must be unique, unusual, or of general

interest, in order to be significant. They add that a case study should also always be either

theoretically or practically relevant.

For case studies, Yin (2003) proposes four validity parameters: construct validity, internal validity,

external validity, and reliability. To ensure construct validity, a researcher must multiple sources of

evidence. I have done this by selecting four different people to interview. Ensuring internal validity

is done through the chosen analytic technique, in my case pattern matching. To establish external of 50

15

validity in a single-case study, a researcher must compare his results to generally accepted theory.

The theoretical framework of this thesis will work to ensure as much external validity as possible.

Finally, to ensure reliability a researcher must demonstrate that the data collection procedures of the

case study can be repeated with the same results. I have aimed to ensure reliability by providing

information about my data collection procedures in this research design, and by recording the

interviews I conducted so that others can review them.

The case study will be presented in its entirety after the theoretical framework has been accounted

for.

4. Theoretical Framework

Having established the methodological framework, the following sections will cover the theories

that have been deemed important to understand the concepts of culture and negotiation.

4.1 Culture

In order to adequately try to understand how culture is connected with negotiation, it is a necessity

to first review the phenomenon of culture: what it comprises, how it varies, and why it is important

to business negotiators.

Culture Defined

Literature about culture originates from the science of anthropology, and anthropologists have

defined the phenomenon in numerous ways (Adler, 2008). Culture has in fact been defined so many

times, that the anthropologists Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) identified more than 100 different

definitions of the term (in Adler, 2008). Based on these, they came up with one of the most

comprehensive and generally accepted definitions of culture:

of 50

16

“Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and

transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinct achievement of human groups,

including their embodiment in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of

traditional (i.e., historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached

values; culture system may, on the one hand, be considered as products of actions, on

the other, as conditioning elements of future action” (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952 in

Adler, 2008, p. 18).

One of the first and most widely cited definitions of culture, was provided by the English

anthropologist Tylor, who defined it as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art,

morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society

” (1871, p. 1). Hall (1990) remarked, that culture could be likened to “a giant, extraordinary

complex, subtle computer” (p. 3). Brett (2001) called it “the unique character of a social group” (p.

6). And Fisher (1980) emphasized, that culture is something learned through socialization (in Tan &

Lim, 2002). From the many definitions of the concept, Adler (2008) sums up, that culture is

something which is shared by all or almost all members of a given social group, something passed

on from older to younger members of a group, and something that shapes peoples perception of the

world. Adler (2008) adds, that generally speaking, people can be said to be of different cultures if

their ways of life as a group are significantly different. In addition, Adler (2008) offers a general

model of how culture influences behavior, and how this behavior feeds back to culture. The model

can be seen below (adapted from Adler, 2008, p. 19)

of 50

17

In the model, individuals express culture through the values they hold about life and the world.

Values are, according to Adler (2008), what is explicitly and implicitly desirable to an individual or

a group. These values affect their attitude about what behavior is considered appropriate in any

given situation. In the end, the continuous behavior of individuals and groups influence society’s

culture, and so the cycle continues. It almost goes without saying, that culture also affects how

people do business across the world.

In the business world, managers have adopted the definition of culture offered by the Dutch

researcher Hofstede (1980), who described it as “the software of the mind” (in Adler, 2008, p. 19).

Hofstede (1997) stresses, that culture is something that is learned, not inherited. In addition, he

asserts that culture is something distinct from human nature on one side, and individual personality

on the other, as illustrated below (adapted from Hofstede, 1997, p. 6).

In the figure, human nature is something every human has in common, as opposed to the

individual’s personality, which is unique. In between is culture, something specific to a group. And of 50

18

according to Hofstede (1997), the cultural differences between groups manifest themselves on

different levels, as illustrated by his onion model below (adapted from Hofstede, 1997, p. 9).

In the model, symbols, heroes, and rituals are what Hofstede (1997) calls practices. These are the

manifestations of culture that are visible to the outside observer, even though their cultural meaning

is invisible and derived only from how the insiders interpret these practices. The core of culture is

formed by values. According to Hofstede (1997), values are, in the cultural sense, broad tendencies

within a social group to prefer certain states of affairs to others. Values are invisible however, and

scholars can merely try to infer these from observing how people act in given situations, or by

asking people about their values e.g. through written questionnaires (Hofstede, 1997). The choice

between making observations in the field and making questionnaires is connected to the two main

approaches of how to study culture: the emic and etic approach.

Emic and Etic Approaches

Pike (1954, in Lu 2012) first put forward the distinction between the emic and etic approaches. It

was originally developed in order to enable researchers to compare cultures based on field data, and

of 50

19

it has since been regularly discussed in cross-cultural literature (Lu, 2012). The etic approach aims

at isolating components of culture and testing hypotheses related to these, thereby finding universal

human traits that vary across cultures (Lu, 2012). In other words, etic researchers assume that by

looking at generalizable phenomena one can compare cultures (Lu, 2012). Emic researchers on the

other hand, assume that the optimal way to understand a culture is to view it as a complex

integrated system, not always comparable to other cultures (Lu, 2012). Emic research tries to

identify phenomena that are specific to a culture, and thereby understand the culture as one of its

members does, i.e. understand the culture from within (Lu, 2012). In cross-cultural research, emic

researchers closely examine one culture at a time by studying its insiders, while etic researchers

compare several cultures at once (Lu, 2012). In international business, it is argued that etic

approaches are suitable for comparing cultures, although emic approaches are needed to verify and

give perspective to the results (Lu, 2012). It has been common within etic approaches to try to

measure culture, although this is a debated topic and a continuous challenge for researchers (Lu,

2012).

This thesis will present the theories of culture by Hall (1990) and Hofstede (1997) respectively,

which are derived from the etic, or “outside”, view of culture. These theories have a bipolar

paradigm in common, meaning they view culture as consisting of a set of finite measurable

dimensions. The choice of these theories was made in order to provide a solid outside view of how

the Korean and Danish culture compares.

With the establishment of the concept of culture in place, the following paragraphs will present

theories of how national cultures vary.

Hofstede’s Six Dimensions of National Culture

Hofstede analyzed a large database of employee value scores collected by the multinational firm

IBM between 1967 and 1973, with data from more than 70 countries (Hofstede, 1997). The study

was at the time one of the most comprehensive studies of how values in the workplace are

influenced by culture, and many subsequent studies have later contributed to the analysis (Hofstede,

1997; 2010). Hofstede (1997) found that the values that distinguished countries from each other

of 50

20

could be grouped statistically into four clusters. These four groups became his original dimensions

of national culture, and were as follows: Power Distance, Individualism vs. Collectivism,

Masculinity vs. Femininity, and Uncertainty Avoidance (Hofstede, 1997). In 1991, a fifth

dimension was added to the study. The dimension was named Long-Term Orientation and was

based on Confucian dynamism (Hofstede, 1997). In 2010, yet another dimension was added: the

Indulgence vs. Restraint dimension, expressing how a society’s social norms allow for indulgence

of the individual (Hofstede, 2010).

Hofstede’s research was an attempt to measure culture empirically. A country obtains a score in

each dimension (from 1 to 100), but the score in itself is relative, i.e. meaningless if not compared

to another country’s score in the same dimension (Hofstede, 1997; 2010). Other than modeling

cultural differences between countries, the research also showed interesting correlations between

the dimensions and other data. For instance, individualism proved to be correlated with national

wealth, and long-term orientation with school results in international comparison (Hofstede, 1997;

2010). In terms of business negotiations, Brett (2001) found that Hofstede’s Individualism vs.

Collectivism dimension might affect negotiators’ confrontational and motivational behaviors.

Power Distance (PDI)

The first dimension, PDI, expresses the degree to which less powerful people in a society accept

and expect an unequal power distribution (Hofstede, 1997). The dimension captures how a society

handles inequality among its people. For example, people in low power distance societies strive to

equalize power distribution and demand justification for inequality (Hofstede, 1997). In a high

power distance society, people accept hierarchy and do not need justification for their place in

society (Hofstede, 1997). It is in other words inequality described from the bottom of society, and it

is something transferred to children from parents and other elders (Hofstede, 2010).

Below are the scores for Denmark and South Korea in the PDI dimension. All scores used in this

thesis have been obtained from his and his co-author’s book Cultures and Organizations (2010).

of 50

21

Power Distance (PDI)

Denmark 18

South Korea 60

With a score of 18, Denmark is one of the lowest scoring countries in this dimension. According to

Hofstede (1997), this means several things: equality is highly valued, decentralization is popular,

small income differentials in society, privileges and status symbols are frowned upon, a large

middle class, and powerful people try to look less powerful than they are. Hofstede (1997; 2010)

remarks that as a small power distance culture, Denmark has: high employee autonomy, a belief in

independency, equal rights, accessible superiors, and managers who facilitate and empower their

subordinates. Furthermore, respect is something earned by proving your expertise, workplaces have

informal atmospheres, and communication is on a first name basis (Hofstede, 1997; 2010).

Turning to Korea, a score of 60 makes it a high power distance society relative to Denmark.

Compared to Denmark, Korean culture can be said to: desire and expect inequality, prefer

centralization, have large income differentials in society, expect and pursue privileges and status

symbols, have a small middle class, and have powerful people who try to look as impressive as

possible (Hofstede, 1997). In addition, Korea has a hierarchical society. This is reflected in

organizations, where subordinates expect to be told what to do by their superiors (Hofstede, 1997;

2010).

The difference between Danish and Korean culture in this dimension could potentially pose several

problems when businesspeople from each culture negotiate with each other. A Danish negotiator

might be unaware of the importance of formality in Korean culture, and inadvertently offend his

Korean opponent by being too informal. Conversely, a Dane might easily feel uncomfortable if a

negotiation is very formal all the way through.

Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV)

of 50

22

The IDV dimension rates a country on a scale ranging from individualistic to collectivistic. In other

words, it describes whether people in a country define their self-image in terms of “I” or “we”.

Individualism can be defined as the preference for a society where the ties between individuals are

loose, i.e. in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their direct family only

(Hofstede, 1997). A highly individualistic culture is one where: individual interests prevail over

collective interests, identity is based on the individual, and task prevails over relationship (Hofstede,

1997). Collectivism refers to a society’s preference for a tightly knit social culture, where

individuals can expect their group-members to look after them in exchange for absolute loyalty

(Hofstede, 1997). In a highly collectivist culture it can be expected that: collective interests prevail

over individual interests, identity is based on the social network one belongs to, and relationship

prevails over task (Hofstede, 1997).

Below are the scores for Denmark and Korea in this dimension.

Individualism (IDV)

Denmark 74

South Korea 18

The score of Denmark suggests that Danish culture is highly individualistic compared to Korean

culture. According to Hofstede (2010), Danes are relatively easy to do business with. Furthermore,

Danes avoid small talk, are very direct when communicating, and do not feel the need to establish

relationships before doing business with others (Hofstede, 2010).

A score of 18 indicates that South Korea is a very collectivist society. This means long-term

commitment to family and extended family, and loyalty over most other societal rules (Hofstede,

2010). Also very importantly, offence will lead to shame and loss of face, a serious matter in

Korean and other Asian cultures (Hofstede, 2010).

of 50

23

Korean and Danish are on opposite ends in this dimension. The difference in culture may affect

business negotiations, especially in terms of relationship building. While Danes are comfortable

with doing business without first creating a relationship with someone, this is not something

Koreans are likely to be easy with.

Masculinity vs. Femininity (MAS)

The MAS dimension measures masculinity in a society. By masculinity, Hofstede (1997) means a

society’s preference for heroism, achievement, assertiveness, and material rewards for success. A

feminine society is one that prefers cooperation, modesty, caring for the weak, and quality of life is

valued (Hofstede, 1997). Quite often masculine societies are competitive and performance-oriented,

while feminine societies are consensus-oriented welfare societies (Hofstede, 1997).

As it can be seen below, Denmark has a score of 16, making it a feminine society. This means that

in Danish culture managers are expected to be supportive to employees, equality and solidarity is

valued, and quality in one’s working life is strived for (Hofstede, 2010). According to Hofstede

(2010), conflicts are resolved through compromise and negotiation, and Danes are keen on long

discussions to reach consensus.

Masculinity (MAS)

Denmark 16

South Korea 39

Korea too is a feminine society (Hofstede, 1997; 2010). Overall, this should mean that Korean and

Danish culture share the same values in this dimension, albeit Korean culture is more masculine in

comparison. In relation to business negotiations, both Danes and Koreans should, according to

Hofstede (1997), be expected to display modesty, sympathy, and solidarity.

of 50

24

Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI)

A country’s score in the UAI dimension is an expression of the degree to which its people feel

uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity (Hofstede, 1997). As Hofstede (2010) says, the

dimension reflects whether a culture tries to control the future or just lets it happen. Strong AUI

cultures value rules, like being busy, and they are intolerant of unorthodox behavior (Hofstede,

1997). Weak UAI cultures on the other hand, have a more relaxed attitude, value practice over

principles, and adhere to tolerance and moderation (Hofstede, 1997).

Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI)

Denmark 23

South Korea 85

As it can be seen above, Danish culture has low uncertainty avoidance. Danes do not need a lot of

structure or predictability in their work life (Hofstede, 2010). In Danish culture plans can change

suddenly without causing discomfort, curiosity is encouraged, and it is acceptable to say “I do not

know” (Hofstede, 2010). South Korea however, is one of the most uncertainty avoiding countries in

the world (Hofstede, 2010). In Korean culture rigid codes are prevalent and time is money

(Hofstede, 2010). Hard work, precision, and punctuality are the norms, and security is important to

the individual (Hofstede, 2010).

The difference between Korean and Danish culture in this dimension is very conspicuous. In a

business negotiation setting, this could cause unintentional problems. A Danish negotiator who

admits uncertainty about a particular matter, might be considered weak or incompetent by his

Korean opponent, even though the Dane thinks it is okay to not have knowledge of this matter. A

Korean might feel very uncomfortable if the schedule is revised last minute when visiting a Danish

company to negotiate business.

Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation (LTO)

of 50

25

The LTO dimension measures a culture’s search for virtue (Hofstede, 1997). Short-term oriented

cultures are strongly concerned with establishing absolute truths, unconcerned with saving and

investing, have great respect for traditions, and value quick results (Hofstede, 1997). In long-term

oriented cultures people believe truth depends on context and time, saving and investing is

important, traditions are amendable, and slow results are the desired outcome of perseverance

(Hofstede, 1997).

As it can be seen below, Danish and Korean culture once again differ from each other.

Long-Term Orientation (LTO)

Denmark 46

South Korea 75

Danish culture is according to this score a short-term oriented culture, although it is very close to

the middle. Because of its short-term culture, Danish organizations prioritize abstract rationality,

and analytical thinking, they believe in one right way to do things, and they focus on the now rather

than the past (Hofstede, 2010). Korean culture is in contrast one of the most long-term oriented

cultures (Hofstede, 1997). Historically, Koreans have no concern for one true deity, and rather they

live their lives guided by virtues and good examples (Hofstede, 2010). Korean corporate culture

does not focus on the here and now, but rather the future of the company and society at large

(Hofstede, 2010).

The difference in orientation between Danes and Koreans could prove troublesome in business

negotiations. It is possible that Danes would expect some issues to be dealt with quickly, while

Koreans had expected more time to deal with the same matter. Also, Danes might not give much

thought to what will happen after negotiations have been concluded, while Koreans could be

expected to be very concerned with the future relationship.

of 50

26

Indulgence vs. Restraint (IVR)

The last and newest of Hofstede’s dimensions measures indulgence versus restraint in a culture. An

indulgent society allows relatively free satisfaction of basic and natural human needs, while a

restrained society suppresses these and regulates them by strict social norms (Hofstede, 2010).

Below are the scores for Korea and Denmark in the IVR dimension.

Indulgence (IVR)

Denmark 70

South Korea 29

As it can be seen, according to Hofstede (2010), Denmark is a rather indulgent society compared to

Korea. This means that Danes believe leisure and freedom of speech is important, and that sexual

norms are quite lenient (Hofstede, 2010). On the other hand, Koreans attribute lower importance to

leisure, and freedom of speech is not a primary concern (Hofstede, 2010). Korean society will also

have strict sexual norms compared to Danish society (Hofstede, 2010).

Danish and Korean culture differ quite a lot in this last dimension, but whether or not this could

impact business negotiations between Koreans and Danes is difficult to predict. Overall, it should

be expected that Danes are less reserved than Koreans. This could potentially mean that a Dane

much easier offends a Korean than the other way around.

Critique of Hofstede’s Dimensions

As Hofstede’s work has been dealt much attention in this thesis, it seems necessary to introduce

some of the criticism of his work as well. Although Hofstede’s work on culture is some of the most

cited in history, there is still much critique of the validity of his work (Jones, 2007). As Jones

of 50

27

(2007) says, Hofstede’s work has had major implications across many academic disciplines,

including international business, but it has at the same time been highly controversial.

First of, there has much been criticism of the relevance of questionnaire surveys when measuring

cultural differences (Jones, 2007). Secondly, and perhaps most popularly, there has been abundant

criticism of how Hofstede’s study assumes that every nation has a homogeneous population who

share but only one culture (Jones, 2007). Thirdly, many scholars have argued that the use of only

one multinational company cannot possibly provide valid information about the culture of entire

countries (Jones, 2007). Finally, researchers have argued that Hofstede’s results are outdated, has

too few dimensions to adequately explain cultural differences, and lacks statistical integrity because

of a low number of survey respondents (Jones, 2007).

Despite the criticism of Hofstede’s work, just as many scholars have found his work to be

groundbreaking, rigorous, relevant, and relatively accurate when replicated (Jones, 2007).

Hall’s Dimensions of Culture

Hall (1990) wrote, that culture is communication, that is to say cultural differences become visible

when people communicate. The nature of cultural communication however, is much more complex

than ordinary spoken or written messages (Hall, 1990). In fact, Hall (1990) called culture a silent

language, which most people convey without even being conscious of it. When people

communicate, Hall (1990) found there are three factors that vary with a person’s culture: Context,

Time, and Space. However, for this thesis only the dimensions of time and context have been found

relevant. Like Hofstede’s, Hall’s dimensions are bipolar, showing cultural differences as being

within a continuum of two extremes.

High and Low Context

Hall (1990) defines context as “the information that surrounds an event” (p. 6). According to Hall

(1990), when individuals communicate, the intended meaning of their messages are either free of

of 50

28

context, highly contextual, or somewhere in between. How contextual an individual’s

communication is, depends on his or her culture (Hall, 1990).

In high-context cultures communication is largely implicit, and most of the information needed to

understand a message is already possessed by the receiver (Hall, 1990). In other words, high-

context cultures have many “unwritten rules”, and much is taken for granted when people

communicate. Communication in low-context cultures is quite the opposite. In these, the

information needed to understand a message is mostly contained in what is explicitly communicated

(Hall, 1990). Put another way, in low-context cultures very little is taken for granted, and

communication is often simple and clear.

Cultures that have extensive information networks across family, friends, colleagues, and clients,

are high-context (Hall, 1990). People from these cultures keep themselves informed about

everything in their networks, and therefore they do not need much information to understand each

other when they communicate (Hall, 1990). Conversely, people from low-context cultures separate

their personal relationships, their work, and many other parts of their lives from each other (Hall,

1990). Because of this, people from these cultures need to convey a lot of detailed information

whenever they interact (Hall, 1990).

Below is a figure showing different cultures in Hall’s low to high-context continuum (based on

Hall, 1990; Copeland & Griggs, 1985; Kim et al., 1998).

of 50

29

As it can be seen, according to Hall’s dimension, Denmark is a low-context culture while Korea is a

high-context culture. Danish and Korean cultures are in fact on opposite extremes when it comes to

the level of context surrounding their communication. This could very well pose several problems

when individuals from each culture negotiate with each other. For instance, a Korean might become

irritated and even offended if a Dane insists on giving him information he does not need (Hall,

1990). Conversely, a Dane might become confused if a Korean does not provide enough

information (Hall, 1990). A Korean will probably feel that his intelligence has been insulted if a

Dane continuously tells him things that are usually taken for granted among Koreans. As a result, a

Korean might feel talked down to by a Dane, without this even being the Danes intention. A Dane

might on the other hand be unable to read between the lines of a Korean’s messages, and thereby

misunderstand his intentions.

Interestingly, it becomes very obvious that Korean culture is high-context when one takes a closer

look at the Korean language, known as Hangul. The Korean language has several different

politeness levels, which are used depending on the age, gender, and social status of whomever you

are talking to. Politeness levels are expressed by different vocabulary and by adding different

suffixes to the end of sentences, but the level of politeness inherent in Korean is often lost when

translated to e.g. English or Danish. Another example is the common Korean greeting ‘어디 가?’

which means, ‘Where are you going?’. However, the literal translation would be ‘Where going?’, as

Koreans assume it to be obvious who the message is directed to when there are only two people

speaking together.

Monochronic and Polychronic Time

Hall (1990) argues that there are many systems of time in the world, but only two that are important

for international business: monochronic and polychronic time. Monochronic time means doing only

one thing at a time (Hall, 1990). Polychronic time means being occupied with many things at once

(Hall, 1990). Hall (1990) compares the two time systems with oil and water, implying that a culture

is either monochronic or polychronic.

of 50

30

In monochronic cultures people perceive time as linear, stretching from the past into the present

and future (Hall, 1990). The adherence to doing one thing at a time means that schedules and plans

are very important in these cultures, and unlikely to be changed once first decided on (Hall, 1990).

Monochronic cultures view time as something tangible, something that can be spent, wasted, and

saved, and as a result people from these cultures do not like to be interrupted (Hall, 1990). Hall

(1990) remarks that monochronic cultures often are low-context, while polychronic cultures tend to

be high-context.

In polychronic cultures people are greatly involved in many things at once, and more attention is

paid to human interaction than to schedules (Hall, 1990). This might mean that people are unlikely

to break up even a casual conversation before its natural conclusion, even though they are late for

an appointment somewhere else (Hall, 1990). While people in monochronic societies have many

short-term relationships, people from polychronic cultures have strong tendencies to build lifelong

relationships (Hall, 1990).

Denmark is a monochronic society as is the rest of Scandinavia (Onkvisit & Shaw, 2004). Korea is

on the other hand a polychronic society, like many other East Asian cultures (Onkvisit & Shaw,

2004). In business negotiations, this could mean that a Dane is likely to insist on taking one matter

at a time, while a Korean would be used to dealing with many things at once. Moreover, a Korean

would probably become uneasy if he feels that his Danish negotiation opponent is more focused on

getting a deal than building a lasting business relationship. Lastly, a Korean might be late for a

negotiation with a Dane and think nothing of it, much to the annoyance of the Dane however.

Culture in International Business Negotiations

As global business is becoming the dominant form of business, it is inevitable that cross-cultural

business relationships will become increasingly important. A pivotal aspect of all

interorganizational relationships, including cross-cultural ones, is negotiating (Adler, 2008). In fact,

Carnevale and Pruitt (1992) argued that cultural differences in negotiation would become more

important as a consequence of globalization (in Tan & Lim, 2002). And in general, research within

negotiation and culture has been growing since the 1990s, underlining the growing importance for

of 50

31

international business managers’ awareness of the topic (Tan & Lim, 2002; Adler, 2008). It can

easily be argued that culture is a primary determinant of the strategies and tactics individuals use in

international business negotiations (Tan & Lim, 2002). Lastly, Adler (2008) writes that to succeed

in international business negotiations, businesspeople need to know how to communicate with, but

also influence, people from other cultures.

4.2 Negotiation Theory

To understand how culture is involved in negotiations between Korean and Danish businesspeople,

one needs to understand the fundamentals of negotiation theory. It is important to know why people

negotiate in the first place, how they negotiate, and what exactly constitutes a negotiation situation.

Lastly, the subject of cross-cultural negotiation will be covered.

The Nature of Negotiation

“Like it or not, you are a negotiator… Everyone negotiates something every day” (Fisher et al.,

1991, p. xiii). Basically, every person has to negotiate at some point in their life, be it in business,

politics, or in everyday family life (Fisher et al., 1991). According to Thompson (2009), “anytime

you cannot achieve your objectives without the cooperation of others, you are negotiating” (p. 2).

Essentially, negotiation is a means for people to get what they want from others (Fisher et al.,

1991). It is a tool for communication and influence, and it applies for individuals as well as

companies (Thompson, 2009). Lewicki et al. (2010) emphasize that negotiation is a “complex social

process” (p. 3). In this thesis, I shall use Thompson’s (2009) definition of negotiation, as I find it to

adequately describe the concept:

“Negotiation is an interpersonal decision making process necessary whenever we

cannot achieve our objectives single-handedly” (p. 2).

Brett (2001) argues that people negotiate for three reasons: to make deals, to make decisions, and to

resolve disputes. She adds that all negotiations occur because the involved parties perceive

themselves as being interdependent, but having incompatible goals. Lewicki et al. (2010) found that

there are six characteristics common for all negotiation situations. First, negotiation involves two or

more parties, i.e. negotiation takes place between individuals, within groups, or between groups.

of 50

32

Second, a negotiation situation arises from a conflict, meaning that the parties involved have

different needs and desires. Third, the parties negotiating do so by choice, meaning that negotiation

is a voluntary process. Fourth, people expect a “give-and-take” process when they negotiate, i.e.

people expect the outcome of negotiation to be a compromise. Fifth, people would rather negotiate

than fight, meaning people prefer searching for agreement to involving third parties in conflicts.

And finally, any negotiation has both tangible and intangible factors. Tangibles are issues such as

price and terms of agreement, while intangibles are psychological factors such as the need to “win”

or the need to protect one’s reputation.

Negotiation Fundamentals

Another thing all negotiations have in common is that preparation is key. As Thompson (2009) puts

it, “The most important questions a negotiator needs to ask of himself or herself at the outset of

negotiation are ‘What do I want?’ and ‘What are my alternatives?’” (p. 13). The first question lets

a negotiator define his or her target outcome in a negotiation, while the second helps identifying

when to walk away from it.

Any negotiator needs to determine his or her best alternative to a negotiated agreement, commonly

referred to as one’s BATNA (Thompson, 2009). Without defining a BATNA, a negotiator has no

way of knowing what is in his or her best interest, and might therefore reach a deal or agreement

that is worse than another readily available alternative. Moreover, a negotiator’s BATNA is his or

her power when negotiating, and it has a crucial impact on the outcome of the negotiation

(Thompson, 2009).

Not knowing one’s target can result in either asking for too little in negotiation, leaving a feeling of

regret if the other party immediately grants this, or asking for too much and scaring off or insulting

the other party (Thompson, 2009).

Fundamental to how a person negotiates is his or her interests, priorities, and strategies (Brett,

2001). Interests are a person’s needs and wants in a negotiation. Priorities are a reflection of how a

person values his or her interests relative to each other. A negotiation strategy is the set of behaviors

a negotiator chooses to use in order to achieve his or her goals. When people are interdependent but of 50

33

perceive that they have incompatible goals, the result is conflict (Lewicki et al., 2010). Pruitt et al.

(1994) argue that the strategies negotiators use to solve conflicts are determined by two independent

concerns: concern about own outcomes and concern about other’s outcomes (in Lewicki et al.,

2010). According to this dual concerns model, a negotiator with a weak concern for the other

party’s outcome and a strong concern for his or her own outcome will employ a contending

strategy. A negotiator who has strong concern for own as well as other’s outcome will employ a

problem solving strategy.

Negotiators employing the contending strategy will pursue own interests strongly while showing

little concern for the other party’s concerns (Lewicki et al., 2010). This strategy involves an active

effort to persuade the other party to yield, also known as distributive negotiation.

A problem solving strategy is one where the negotiator actively tries to maximize the joint outcome

of the situation rather than just his or her own (Lewicki et al., 2010). This process is called

integrative negotiation.

Distributive and Integrative Negotiation

Distributive negotiation occurs when people approach a negotiation from a win-lose viewpoint.

They will see it as a zero-sum situation where one party’s gain is the other party’s loss (Lewicki et

al., 2010). The resources are perceived as a “fixed pie”, and people will try to get as much as

possible from this pie (Lewicki et al., 2010). They will employ strategies and tactics with the

purpose of claiming value (Lewicki et al., 2010).

Integrative negotiation is the result of people approaching a negotiation believing it to be a win-win

situation. They will see it as a non-zero-sum situation where all parties can achieve their goals and

objectives (Lewicki et al., 2010). In such situations people believe there to be a possibility of

“expanding the pie” of resources through cooperation (Lewicki et al., 2010). In integrative

bargaining the purpose is therefore to create value (Lewicki et al., 2010).

Whether a situation is in fact distributive or integrative is always difficult to tell, and Lewicki et al.

(2010) argue that most negotiation problems in fact are a combination of both, and therefore require

of 50

34

both value claiming and value creating processes. Brett (2001) concurs by saying, “there may be

opportunities to create value in even the simplest of negotiations” (p. 3). Thompson (2009)

emphasizes that integrative agreements are indeed preferable, but a successful negotiator should

never forget to claim resources. Thompson (2009) further adds that building trust should be just as

important as creating and claiming value when negotiating.

The Influence of Culture on Negotiation

When culture enters the negotiation process it becomes increasingly complicated (Lewicki et al.,

2010). According to Brett (2001) people always bring culture to the negotiation table in shape of

their interests, priorities, and strategies.

Culture affects the interests and priorities of negotiators, and the fit between these is what generates

potential for integrative agreements (Brett, 2001). Culture also affects the strategic behavior that

negotiators bring to the table, more specifically their ways of dealing with confrontation, their

motivation, and their ways of using information and influence (Brett, 2001).

Brett (2001) found that the way people prefer to confront others in negotiations ranges from direct

to indirect. The preference for direct or indirect verbal interaction is in other words dependent on

the negotiator’s culture. The same can be said for information sharing, which is also either direct or

indirect depending on the negotiator’s culture. Furthermore, Brett (2001) argues that different

interests motivate people across cultures. Some people are mostly motivated by self-interests, some

by other interests, and some by collective interests. The way negotiators try to influence each other

depends on culture as well (Brett, 2001). Some people prefer to use power in order to persuade their

opponent to yield when negotiating, while others prefer to appeal to the importance of equality,

needs, and social status.

Brett (2001) has linked the abovementioned negotiation behaviors with some of the cultural

dimensions proposed by Hofstede and Hall.

First of, Hofstede’s IDV dimension was found to influence negotiators’ motivation and

confrontation behavior (Brett, 2001). Direct confrontation is preferred in individualistic societies

such as Denmark, while such behavior is considered to signal a lack of respect in collectivist

societies such as Korea. Here an indirect approach is believed to be relationship preserving. In of 50

35

addition, individualist cultures emphasize self-interests, while collectivist cultures emphasize

collective interests.

Secondly, Hofstede’s PDI dimension was suggested to influence both confrontational and influence

behaviors of negotiators (Brett, 2001). Negotiators from high power distance societies such as

Korea are likely to avoid direct confrontation because this behavior signals lack of respect for social

status. People from these cultures honor the norm of not challenging higher-status members of

society in negotiations. Moreover, negotiators from low power distance societies such as Denmark

derive their power in a negotiation from the strength of their BATNA. In a high power distance

society such as Korea negotiators derive their power from their social status.

Finally, Hall’s dimension of high and low context was found to influence confrontation and

information behavior (Brett, 2001). Not surprisingly, high context cultures are largely adherent to

indirect confrontation and information sharing, while low context cultures prefer direct approaches.

Lewicki et al. (2010) suggest that culture influences negotiation in several ways as well. Culture

does for instance influence the fundamental definition of negotiation, i.e. what is negotiable. Some

cultures see the goal of a negotiation as a contract while others see a relationship. Culture also has

an influence on whether people see negotiation as being fundamentally distributive or integrative.

Whether a country’s negotiation protocol is formal or informal is also a matter of culture. Finally,

culture is said to influence the extent to which people display emotion in negotiations.

Thompson (2009) identified several reasons as to why negotiations are more difficult when a cross-

culture element is present. First of, negotiators experience more difficulty in expanding the pie

when they negotiate across cultures. Secondly, ethnocentrism is a problem in cross-cultural

negotiations. Ethnocentrism is the act of evaluating other cultures negatively compared to one’s

own. Finally, a negotiator might inadvertently offend his opponent if he or she is unaware of issues

that are sacred or taboo in the opponent’s culture.

To overcome the obstacles of intercultural negotiations, Thompson (2009) suggests that negotiators

display empathy, sociability, openness, tolerance, patience, and interest in other cultures. Brett

(2001) adds that skilled cross-cultural negotiator will proceed slowly and carefully in negotiations. of 50

36

5. Comparing Danes and Koreans

In a more practical effort to compare the negotiation behavior of Danes and Koreans, a brief

comparison of the two countries follows below. Lewis (2006) and Katz (2007) found that Danes

and Koreans are quite different in terms of their cultural values, communication behavior, and

negotiation styles.

Cultural Values

Danish people value egalitarianism, tolerance, social justice, and honesty. Bragging is frowned

upon, and Danes perceive status based on qualification, results, and competence. The Danes are

often described as more communicative, easy-going, and international than their Nordic neighbors.

The Danish business-style is relatively laid-back, and humor is important in order for Danes to feel

comfortable. Business relationships are often seen as only moderately important, although Danes

are usually cautious and reserved in first-time business meetings. Relationships are valued however,

and once sufficient trust has been established, Danes will go a long way for their business partners

in order to show loyalty and respect. Danes are timely without being so obsessively, and they value

their spare time a great deal. Finally, Danes admire individuals who possess initiative, knowledge,

and expertise.

Turning to Korean culture, it is first and foremost strongly influenced by Confucianism. Koreans

value a vertical societal structure, protection of inner feelings, respect, toughness, tenacity, and

collectivism. Lack of respect is frowned upon, and status, influence, and power are important.

These intangibles are decided by family name, wealth, education, and occupation. An important

concept in Korean culture is kibun, which roughly translates into a person’s “face” or “inner

feelings”. Sensitivity to kibun is paramount in Korean society, and to be aware of it is to respect and

maintain social balance and correct behavior. Korean business relationships exist more between

groups and individuals than between companies themselves, and personal networks are therefore

essential. Moreover, business relationships require long-term commitment in Korea. Koreans are

of 50

37

relatively punctual, and they rarely waste time. Finally, Koreans admire people who are respectful,

persistent, and sociable.

Communication Behavior

Danes are in general very blunt, but frequently employ sarcasm and irony when they communicate.

They are good listeners and rarely interrupt others. Communication is very direct, and too much

sugarcoating and diplomacy can confuse or even annoy a Dane. Danes expect people to tell the

truth without being abrasive. Also, Danish people are particularly fond of anecdotes and humor.

Danes like to charm people and be charmed. They accept cynicism when discussing business, and

they stick to facts and reason in their arguments. Body language is not used a whole lot, and

physical contact is kept to handshaking when meeting and saying goodbye. Lastly, communication

in Denmark is largely horizontal, and Danes do not feel a need to respect hierarchy in

conversations.

Koreans love conversation and are energetic in their communication style. They listen courteously

and are keen to ask follow-up questions. Overall communication is indirect, and Koreans are adept

at understanding subtle clues and nonverbal messages. Koreans will usually avoid saying “no” in

order to preserve a harmonious conversation. In general, Koreans are careful to show concern for

face and hierarchy in conversation. They are often described as very friendly and humorous. Like

with Danes, body gestures and physical contact is quite restricted.

Negotiation Styles

Danes tend to view negotiation as a problem-solving process. They are primarily interested in

cooperation and mutual compromise in negotiations. Therefore, Danes expect reciprocation of trust

and concessions. Generally, Danes expect negotiations to be a rather swift affair, and they prefer to

take one thing at a time. Danish people like to negotiate in a straightforward and honest matter, and

frown upon deceptive negotiation tactics. Danes also shy away from aggressive negotiation tactics, of 50

38

but they will almost certainly engage in confrontation if challenged. Lastly, Danes tend to separate

personal relationships from negotiation issues.

Koreans often negotiate from a distributive viewpoint, and attention is always paid to who has the

most situational power. When negotiating, Koreans often use relationships as leverage, and long-

term cooperation is highly valued. In general, Koreans are very competitive negotiators. They are

not afraid to be tough and adversarial, as they do not except either party to take anything personally.

Koreans take their time to gather and discuss information before bargaining, but information is not

shared freely, as doing so is perceived to be foolish. Koreans view negotiation as a process that

takes considerable time. Finally, they employ a wide amount of negotiation tactics. This means that

deception and pressure techniques are frequent and expected, although nothing personal is meant by

this behavior.

6. Empirical Results

On the basis of the established methodological and theoretical framework, the following paragraphs

will present the results from the empirical study I have carried out. First of, an overview of the four

interviews is provided. Then, the main patterns from the interviews will be presented and compared

to relevant concepts from the theoretical framework. Finally, I will briefly reflect upon the results of

my empirical analysis.

The Interviews

The first interview I conducted was with Danish national Morten Bryde Hansen of Lundbeck.

Lundbeck is a global pharmaceutical company working with brain diseases. Morten Bryde Hansen

has worked for Lundbeck for 25 years. He has a Master of Science in Economics from Copenhagen

University, and has among other things worked as a Finance Director for Lundbeck in the UK.

Today he is the Area Vice President of Sales and Marketing for South East Asia, Australia, and the

Middle East. He has over 10 years of experience doing business with Koreans, and currently resides

of 50

39

in Singapore. The interview was conducted via the videoconferencing application Skype. In the

appendix, the interview-file has been named Interview with Morten Bryde Hansen.

Lundbeck has a subsidiary that takes care of most of its operations in Korea. Morten Bryde Hansen

is in Korea when the subsidiary is negotiating very large new orders, and when he needs to

negotiate budgets, salary raises, and the like within the subsidiary.

The second interview was with Danish national Lau Diderichsen of FOSS Analytical. FOSS

develops and produces analytical instruments to improve the quality of products in the agricultural,

food, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries. Lau Diderichsen has a Master in Agronomy and has

worked in industries such as the packaging, biotech, and marine industries. He has only been with

FOSS for about one and a half years. Today he is the Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing

in Europe, Asia, and the Pacific. He has over 25 years of experience working with and in Korea.

FOSS has a subsidiary in Korea which takes care of most of its business activities there, and Lau

Diderichsen is mostly there to sign specifically large orders. The interview-file for this interview is

named Interview with Lau Diderichsen in the appendix. The interview was conducted in Hillerød,

Denmark, at FOSS’ headquarters.

The third interview I conducted was with Danish national René Fich Jespersen of Alfa Laval

Aalborg. Alfa Laval Aalborg is part of the Swedish Alfa Laval Group, and it is a leading supplier

and service provider of marine boilers to the marine sector. René Fich Jespersen is today the

General Manager of New Boiler Sales worldwide. He is Mechanical Engineer and has extensive

international experience in sales and contract negotiation within the marine industry. He currently

visits Korea about four times a year, and is mostly there to negotiate large orders and perform sales

training of employees. Alfa Laval has a Korean subsidiary that takes care of most of its business

there. The interview is in the appendix under the name Interview with René Fich Jespersen. The

interview was conducted in Alfa Laval Aalborg’s headquarters in Aalborg, Denmark.

The final interview was with Korean national Myeong Do Lee of Alfa Laval Korea, the Korean

subsidiary of Alfa Laval. Myeong Do Lee is a Mechanical Engineer of Pusan National University of 50

40

and works as a Sales Manager today. He has previously worked as a Sales Engineer for Hyundai

Heavy Industries, the world’s biggest shipbuilding company. He has worked for Alfa Laval since

2004, and has visited Denmark a total of four times. He has extensive experience negotiating sales

in Korea within the marine industry. The interview with Myeong Do Lee is in the appendix under

the name Interview with Myeong Do Lee. This interview was also conducted at Alfa Laval

Aalborg’s headquarters in Aalborg, Denmark.

Confrontation, Respect, and Hierarchy

According to Brett (2001), Danes should be expected to prefer direct confrontation is needed,

because of the individualistic and low-context nature of Danish culture. On the other hand, Koreans

should be indirect in their confrontation approach, in order to save face and preserve harmonious

relationship.

According to Morten Bryde Hansen, this effort to avoid confrontation goes a long way. As he says,

“They are very friendly, even when they are very angry”. In general, he finds Koreans to be very

attentive to formalities, politeness, and respect. Arguably, this sort of behavior is rooted in the

Korean preference for avoiding direct confrontation. Attentiveness to these basic social facets often

serves as a means of means of preserving a un-confrontational environment. Morten Bryde Hansen

adds, “It has to go very wrong before they become angry”, which is in accordance to what Katz

(2007) says about Koreans not taking things personally in negotiations. Morten Bryde Hansen has

in fact never experienced a Korean who lost his temper in a negotiation. From his experience with

negotiating with Koreans he stresses how important it is to “show respective behavior”, showing

that he is very aware of the Korean sensitivity to confrontation, although he as a Dane presumably

prefers direct confrontation if necessary. To him, it seems that Korean society is permeated with

respect. Consequently, it is uncommon for Koreans to engage in confrontational behavior, as this is

seen as disrespectful.

On the issue of confrontation, Lau Diderichsen emphasizes, “Do not give them an upfront ‘no’!”

He advises that one instead uses a phrase like “We will look into that”. The reason for this behavior,

which is certainly a way of circumventing confrontation, is according to him because “Concern for

face is very important”. He adds that this sort of behavior is even more important when a Korean

has colleagues or superiors present, as confrontation in such a situation would harm his sense of of 50

41

face even more. From his rhetoric, it seems that as a Dane he is very aware of the Korean

preference for non-confrontation, something that suggests that this sort of behavior is not as

common for Danes. He also adds, in regard to how a Dane feels about confrontation, “If you

honestly cannot do what they ask of you, you might as well say it right away, in a nice manner of

course”. Lau Diderichsen also suggests that in case of a deadlock, you schedule a future meeting to

discuss things once again.

René Fich Jespersen has surprisingly had several encounters with Koreans who were not afraid of

confrontation. “I have had negotiations where Korean lawyers have threatened to hold me

personally responsible if I said something wrong”. His experiences suggest that although Koreans

are in favor of non-confrontation, they will surely engage in direct confrontation if they believe they

are in their right to do so. He does add however, “Compared to anyone, you will not get a Korean to

say ‘no’”. So he too has experienced the Korean preference for indirect confrontation. He is

furthermore very aware of the Danish tendency to be straightforward when negotiating, as he says,

“We say things very directly.” “It can give misunderstandings, but also problems, that we Danes

often come and say things as we think they are”. He has even had concrete experiences where the

Danish direct confrontational behavior resulted in a deadlock that lasted for a whole month in

negotiations with Koreans. The reason for this deadlock was a Danish negotiator who had

inadvertently upset the Korean party by pointing out a mistake that they had made. Referring back

to his experiences with confrontation when negotiating with Koreans, he remarks that if it finally

comes to confrontation, “We know in Korea there is no mercy”.

Myeong Do Lee has observed, that if a Danish colleague say ‘no’ in a negotiation with Koreans

partners, they will often make an effort to continue the negotiation, something they would never do

if he said ‘no’. This behavior could be an expression of Korean businesspeople being aware of the

fact that a Dane is saying ‘no’ because this is perfectly acceptable in his culture.

Respect is connected to hierarchy. Morten Bryde Hansen remarks, “There is much respect for

hierarchy… it is very embedded in their culture, so you need to be aware of that of course ”. In the

way he talks about the importance of hierarchy in Korea, it also become visible that hierarchy is

perhaps not as important in Denmark, which is in accordance with the theory of Hofstede (2010).

René Fich Jespersen concurs, saying, “Their hierarchy is extremely important…. What their title is,

of 50

42

the symbols that surround you, your car…” His reference to status symbols is interesting, as

according to Hofstede (2010) these are frowned upon in Danish culture.

Relationship-Building

Lewicki et al. (2010) proposed that some cultures view the outcomes of negotiation differently, i.e.

as either a deal or a relationship.

In regards to relationship-building, Morten Bryde Hansen remarks, “In their rhetoric, they

emphasize more than Danish companies how happy they are about working together, how

important your company is for their company, the long-term relationship, and how they are sure

that we will work together for many years.” Lau Diderichsen shares the same view, adding, “My

experience in Korea is that you have to build a relationship to a director or someone like that… and

that will take a number of visits to do”. When asked about how one builds such a relationship, he

says, “Entertainment is a big part of the Korean culture”, and he has found that one needs to

commit to extensive social arrangements outside of the negotiation table. “Without that you will

rarely get very far”, he adds. Lau Diderichsen mentions that he has found it to be very important to

build trust when negotiating with Koreans. He remarks that not having established a relationship

can cause one to lose a deal, “Sometimes, you just do not have the personal relations with the

person in charge or the network, and then you will be too late”. And even when you have

established a relationship, Koreans will still honor other relationships if they value these more so

than yours, as he says, “What will happen is that he will take your offer and show it to the guy who

already has the personal relations and ask if he can match your offer… and then you are out”. Lau

Diderichsen is however fond of the Korean emphasis on relationships, “I like that you establish

these personal relationships with people you do business with, because then you will have some sort

of loyalty bond”. Generally, he does have a caveat for Westerners doing business in Korea, “It is not

a place where you can just come in with the right product and the best price and assume that they

will buy it”, referring to the importance of relationships.

René Fich Jespersen pays attention to ways of strengthening and utilizing personal relationships

with Koreans in negotation, “Then you have to know if you can help him a little bit… on the

personal level… When you concede, you can easily feel if they are grateful for having positive news

to bring back. And this means a lot more to Koreans… compared to Danes”. of 50

43

Myeong Do Lee underlines the importance of personal relationships when negotiating Koreans,

saying, “Korean people respect relations… Same college, same university. And same home town”.

He remarks that relationship-building is in fact so important, that he at times spends more time

socializing and networking than talking business, “Actually our official work will only take a few

hours”.

Information Sharing

According to Brett (2001), a high-context culture such as Korea can be expected to share

information indirectly in negotiations. Conversely, a low-context culture such as Denmark prefers a

direct approach to information sharing.

Lau Diderichsen has found Koreans to handle agendas differently than Danes, “To my experience,

they rarely follow a clearly organized agenda, like we are used to doing… We like a structured

angle on things”. He even says, “To us, they can seem a bit unstructured. They think in a different

way than we do”. This suggests that Koreans are indeed a polychronic people, and that this shows in

negotiations. Moreover, it shows that Danes are conversely monochronic. Lau Diderichsen

continues, “I think that Koreans… like to go in many directions at once. And it is important to

focus… and try to boil it down to the essence”. This is however not always easy, and he has

experienced on more than one occasion that he felt like he had a deal, only to find out that his

Korean partners did not think so.

Morten Bryde Hansen has experienced some of the same behavior in his negotiations with

Koreans, saying, In the end, you never really know what is going to happen”.

Myeong Do Lee said about information, “Knowing, is my power and my tool for negotiation”. This

way of thinking illustrates how Koreans emphasize the importance of information in negotiations,

and why they are therefore not likely to share it directly.

Influence

of 50

44

Brett (2001) suggests that individuals from high power distance societies such as Korea emphasize

and derive power from social status when they negotiate. This sort of behavior should be rather

infrequent with Danish negotiators.

René Fich Jespersen is very aware of the role of power when negotiating with Koreans, especially

when negotiating with big companies, “Sometimes, because you are the smallest party… you will

have to concede, because of the power they have qua their size”. On a note back to the importance

of relationships, he adds, “When we refuse to concede, it harms our relationship with that particular

shipyard”. In the toughest of negotiation situations, René Fich Jespersen has experienced the

Korean emphasis of power first-handedly, “It will be typical for the big Korean shipyards, in tense

cases, that they bring out the big guns and try to pressure you. Really use the power they have

because of their size… They will use everything. Future orders, threats of arbitration… the whole

arsenal…”

Myeong Do Lee has unique insights to the Korean way of using power in negotiations, and he

explains that some of the biggest companies refuse to close deals with anyone but the top executives

of the partner company, “Some of the big companies like Hyundai and Samsung… do not want to

make a final negotiation with the middle leader, they would like to talk to the responsible leader”.

He remarks that the big shipbuilding companies exert their power even to their customers, “They

make a powerful negotiation with the ship-owner as well”. And he can understand why they do so,

“Power means how to make the frame of the negotiation, so it is quite important”. The significance

of power is readily shown in Korean business life as well, by for instance letting people wait even

though you are ready for the scheduled meeting, “He makes us wait for a while… half an hour. It is

a way of taming the seller”. On a final note, Myeong Do Lee explains how there is a constant search

for valuable information to translate into power in negotiations among Koreans, “I try to find any

gap or any mistakes and utilize this for negotiation… and the ship-owner has same philosophy…”

Reflections

Being a somewhat inexperienced interviewer, I had difficulties with formulating questions that

investigated concrete negotiation techniques and tactics of the interviewees. Overall, a more

structured interview guide with more concrete questions would arguably have improved the range

and usability of responses I received in the interviews. Lastly, transcription and a rigorous coding of 50

45

scheme of the interviews would have provided a clear-cut data mass for pattern finding. This would

however have required the use of much time, which I did not have at the time of the interviews.

7. Conclusion

The purpose of this thesis has been to gain insights into how culture affects negotiations between

Danish and Korean businesspeople. Moreover I have tried to investigate how Danish and Korean

businesspeople experience negotiating with each other, while also examining their respective

negotiation behavior.

In the theoretical framework I found that Brett (2001) has argued that culture affects negotiation

behavior within information sharing, confrontation, interests, and influence. Of Hofstede’s cultural

dimensions, Brett (2001) found that the IDV and PDI dimensions directly affected the negotiation

behavior of individuals. She found the same to be true for Hall’s dimension of high and low

context.

Lewicki et al. (2010) also argued that culture directly influences negotiations, for instance in the

fundamental view of negotiations as either distributive or integrative, and as either a means of

getting a contract or a relationship.

Lewis (2006) and Katz (2007) found that in practice Danes view negotiation as integrative, while

Koreans view it as distributive. Moreover, they found that Danes are reluctant to use deceptive

tactics in negotiations, while Koreans frequently employ these.

I have found in my empirical research that Danes and Koreans do indeed treat confrontation and

information sharing in negotiations differently. From the Danish perspective, I found that Danes are

accustomed to direct communication and confrontation when they negotiate. They are however

aware that such behavior is not the custom in Korea. In Korea, it is important to avoid direct

confrontation unless it absolutely cannot be avoided, and information sharing is rather indirect.

From the Korean perspective, I found that Koreans avoid confrontational behavior in order to avoid

the loss of face, and that relationship-building is paramount in business as well as negotiations.

Koreans notice that Danes are more direct in their overall negotiation approach, but they are

prepared for this and accustomed to it through their international experience. The differences in

of 50

46

confrontation and communication behaviors have however caused problems for Danish

businesspeople in Korea. An example hereof was the concrete experience of one Danish

businessman who observed how taboo behavior resulted in a deadlock in negotiation with a Korean

company. I did however also find that Koreans could engage in aggressive and confrontational

behavior, even though theory predicts that this is rare.

I found that power is essential to the Korean negotiator. Both the Danes and the Korean I

interviewed could tell me much about how vital power is when influencing the other party in Korea.

Not only are Koreans always aware of who is the more powerful player in a negotiation, they will

actively utilize this in order to make the other party yield. This sort of behavior is likely the result of

a Korean distributive negotiation mindset. I found that Danes are indeed prone to integrative

negotiation behavior, although they can certainly play the distributive game too. That Koreans are

not afraid of using deceptive tactics was also confirmed, and this is something that Danes need to

adapt to.

In conclusion to the problem statement, I found culture to have a direct, significant, and visible

effect on negotiations between Korean and Danish businesspeople. Most notably, Danish

negotiators are overall more direct, confrontational, and short-term oriented than their Korean

counterparts. Korean negotiators also value relationship-building, power, and long-term

commitment to a greater extent than their Danish counterparts. Overall, I found both Korean and

Danish negotiators to be skillful and mindful of cultural differences. And it seems that many Danish

and Korean businesspeople have already established trustful long-term relationships.

Limitations

This thesis has first and foremost been limited by the time available for it. Secondly, much attention

should be drawn to the simplifications of culture. The complexity of culture can hardly be

summarized into quantifiable dimensions, although this is indeed very useful. Also, the validity of

the empirical results is disputable. The case study only included four participants, and only a single

interview was conducted with each participant, which is obviously not enough to generalize Korean

and Danish negotiation behavior. In order to increase validity of the empirical results, more sources

of 50

47

of empirical data should be used. It would also be beneficial to include both qualitative and

quantitative research methods, as discussed next.

Ideas for Future Research

If one were to gain a more nuanced and methodical insight into the effect of cultural differences on

negotiation behavior of Korean and Danish businesspeople, a combination of several qualitative and

quantitative methods would be advisable. Preferably, a researcher should be able to directly observe

one or more negotiations between Korean and Danish businesspeople, and then thoroughly analyze

these observations. These should then be verified by a quantitative study. A researcher could for

instance perform a survey among Danish and Korean businesspeople asking questions about the

cultural values, priorities, tactics, etc. they prefer. This way one has a chance of obtaining more

certainty about the results, as using different methods will effectively triangulates these.

8. References

Adler, N. J. (2008). International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. United States: South-

Western.

Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen, A. (2008). Qualitative Methods in Business Research. Great Britain:

Sage.

Guba E. & Lincoln Y. (2005). Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging

Confluences. In Denzin, K. & Lincoln, Y. (2005). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research.

United States: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1997). Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind. United States: McGraw-

Hill.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Culture and Organizations: Software of the

Mind. United States: McGraw-Hill.

of 50

48

Jeon, Y.-J. (2008). The 60 Year Long March of the Korean Economy. Retrieved from

www.seriworld.org.

Jones, M. L. (2007). Hofstede - Culturally questionable? Paper presented at the Oxford Business

& Economics Conference, Oxford, UK.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research. London: Sage.

Seng, T. J., & Lim, E. N. K. (2002). Strategic Negotiation Across Cultures. Singapore: McGraw-Hill

Education.

Onkvisit, S., & Shaw, J. (2004). International Marketing: Analysis and strategy. United States:

Routledge.

Lu, L.-T. (2012). Etic or Emic? Measuring Culture in International Business Research.

International Business Research, 5(5).

Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2010). Negotiation. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

Hansen, E. J., & Andersen, B. H. (2000). Et sociologisk værktøj: Introduktion til den kvantitative

metode. Denmark: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

Copeland, L., & Griggs, L. (1985). Going International: How to Make Friends and Deal Effectively

in the Global Marketplace. United States: Random House.

Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive Culture: Researches Into the Development of Mythology,

Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom. United Kingdom: Murray.

Hall, E. T. (1990). Understanding Cultural Differences. United States: Intercultural Press.

Brett, J. M. (2001). Negotiating Globally. United States: Jossey-Bass.

http://sydkorea.um.dk/en/ - Homepage of the Danish Embassy in South Korea.

Regeringen. (2012). Vækstmarkedsstrategi – Sydkorea. Retrieved from

http://www.evm.dk/aktuelt/pressemeddelelser/2012/19-10-12-regeringen-vil-oege-

eksporten-til-sydkorea.

Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to Yes. United States: Random House.

of 50

49

Thompson, L. (2009). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. United States: Pearson.

Lewis, R. D. (2006). When Cultures Collide: Leading Across Cultures. United States: Nicholas

Brealey International.

Katz, L. (2006). Negotiating International Business. United States: Booksurge

9. Appendix

Submitted with the thesis is a USB storage device containing the interview-files:

Interview with Morten Bryde Hansen.m4a

Interview with Lau Diderichsen.m4a

Interview with René Fich Jespersen.m4a

Interview with Myeong Do Lee.m4a

of 50

50

pure.au.dkpure.au.dk/portal/files/53807883/bp13.docx · web viewin the business world, ......

Documents