Linköping University SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden +46 13-28 10 00, www.liu.se

Linköping University | Department of Management and Engineering Master Thesis in Business Administration, 30 credits | One Year Master – Strategy and Management control

Spring 2021 | ISRN-nummer: LIU-IEI-FIL-A--21/03606--SE

International Negotiations in a Global Pandemic

A quantitative study of how Covid-19 has affected

the international negotiation process

Liza Sarnet Supervisor: Lars Witell

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express the deepest appreciation for those that believed in us during the process of

writing this study. Without their valuable inputs and attention, this work would not have reached

the same level of completion.

Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge my supervisor, Lars Witell, for his valuable support and

patience. His encouragement and invested time have sparked me to deliver my best.

Finally, I would like to express an enormous gratitude and thank you to my fellow classmates and

seminar group who participated with great enthusiasm and useful insights during the seminars. The

one-year master in Strategy and Management control has shaped my mind and provided me with

invaluable knowledge for the future, and for that I am forever grateful.

Linköping 30-05-2021

________________

Liza Sarnet

SAMMANFATTNING

Titel: Internationella Förhandlingsprocesser i en Global Pandemi: en kvantitativ studie

om hur Covid-19 har påverkat internationella förhandlingsprocesser.

Författare: Liza Sarnet.

Handledare: Lars Witell.

Bakgrund: Internationella förhandlingar har länge varit en fundamental del av

internationellt företagande, där den internationella förhandlingen påverkas av både

kultur och förhandlingsstrategi. Den globala pandemin orsakad av Covid-19 har haft

effekter på omvärlden, där viruset hanterats olika från land till land. Till följd av detta

har fysiska möten i internationella förhandlingar minskat, vilket avsevärt kan tänkas ha

påverkat förhandlingsprocessen.

Syfte: Syftet med studien är att undersöka hur Covid-19 har påverkat den

internationella förhandlingsprocessen samt undersöka om det finns något samband

mellan förändringar i förhandlingsprocessen och dess enskilda faser. Utöver detta avser

studien även att jämföra och undersöka om det finns någon skillnad mellan olika

kontinenter i Covid-19s inverkan på den internationella förhandlingsprocessen.

Metod: Studien är av kvantitativ karaktär med en deduktiv ansats och induktiva anslag.

Empiriska data har insamlats med hjälp av en onlineenkät och analyserats med hjälp av

statistiska metoder.

Slutsats: Slutsatsen av studien påvisar att Covid-19 har påverkat hela

förhandlingsprocessen men främst på stadiet av förberedelse och implementering, samt

att det finns ett samband mellan förändringar i förhandlingsprocessen och dess enskilda

faser. Utöver detta visar studien även på att det finns skillnader mellan Covid-19s

påverkan på förhandlingsprocessen mellan olika kontinenter, där Europa skiljer sig från

resterande.

Nyckelord: Internationell förhandling, Nationell kultur, Förhandlingsprocess, Covid-

19, Strategi.

ABSTRACT

Title: International Negotiation in a Global Pandemic: a quantitative study of how

Covid-19 has affected the international negotiation process.

Authors: Liza Sarnet.

Supervisor: Lars Witell.

Background: International negotiations serve as a fundamental part of international

business where the process determines the outcome. The global pandemic caused by the

virus Covid-19 has had a tremendous effect forcing the world to readjust and become

more digitalized. As a result, the physical meeting in international business negotiations

has decreased due to work done remotely. The physical meeting usually playing an

important role in the cross-cultural world of international negotiations, the process

might have been remarkably affected.

Purpose: The purpose of this study investigate how Covid-19 has affected the

international negotiation process, as well as if there is any connection between a change

in the over negotiation process, and a change in the separate stages of the international

negotiation process. Additionally, the study aims to investigate and compare if there are

any differences between continents in how the pandemic has affected the international

negotiation process.

Method: This study is of quantitative nature with a deductive research approach

including inductive elements. The empirical data is collected through an online survey

and analyzed through statistical methods.

Conclusion: The result of the study shows that Covid-19 has affected the international

negotiation process and argues for a close connection between a change in the overall

negotiation process and a change in the pre-negotiation and face-to-face negotiation

phase. Moreover, the study concludes differences between the continents in how Covid-

19 has affected the international negotiation process in the preparation and execution

stage.

Keywords: International Business Negotiation, Negotiation process, National culture,

Negotiation Process, Covid-19, Strategy.

Table of Contents 1.INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 BACKGROUND 1 1.2 PROBLEMATIZATION 5 1.3 PURPOSE 7

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 8 2.1 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS NEGOTIATIONS 8 2.2 NEGOTIATION STRATEGY 9

2.2.1 Integrative negotiation strategy 10 2.2.2 Principled Negotiation 11

2.3 NATIONAL CULTURE 13 2.3.1 High-Context and Low-Context Culture 14 2.3.2. Cultural dimensions 15 Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS) 18

2.4 THE INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATION PROCESS 21 2.4.1. Pre-negotiation 22 2.4.2 Face-to-face negotiation 25 2.4.3 Post-Negotiation 26

2.5 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 27 3. METHODOLOGY 28

3.1 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY 28 3.2 RESEARCH STRATEGY AND APPROACH 29

3.2.1 Deductive approach 30 3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN 31 3.4 DATA COLLECTION 32

3.4.1 Literature review 32 3.4.2 Survey method 33 3.4.3 Survey layout 34 3.4.4 Survey instrument 35 3.4.5 Selection and sampling 35 3.4.6 Variables 37

3.5 DATA ANALYSIS 39 3.5.1 Coding procedure 40 3.5.2 Descriptive statistics 40 3.5.3 Analytical statistics 41

3.6 RESEARCH QUALITY 42 3.6.1 Reliability 42 3.6.2 Replicability 42 3.6.3 Validity 43

3.7 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 44 4. RESULTS & ANALYSIS 47

4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS 47 4.1.1 Initial data 47 4.1.2 Industry & Roles 49 4.1.3 Negotiations: number and type 51

4.2 THE INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATION PROCESS 53 4.2.1 Pre-negotiation 55 4.2.2 Face-to-face negotiation 57 4.2.3 Post-negotiation 58

4.2 COMPARISON BETWEEN CONTINENTS 60 4.2.1 Pre-negotiation 61 4.2.2 Face-to-Face negotiation 64 4.2.3 Post-Negotiation 65 Execution 65

5. CONCLUSIONS & FURTHER RESEARCH 68

5.1 CONTRIBUTIONS 69 6.2 LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH 70

7. REFERENCES 72 8. APPENDIXES 82

APPENDIX 1 - SURVEY 82

Table of Figures

FIGURE 1: HOFSTEDE’S CULTURAL DIMENSIONS (OWN INTERPRETATION) .............................................. 21 FIGURE 2: THE STAGES OF THE INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATION PROCESS (OWN MODEL) ....................... 22 FIGURE 3: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY ............................................................................. 27 FIGURE 4: GENDER ..................................................................................................................................... 49 FIGURE 5: YEARS IN CURRENT ROLE .......................................................................................................... 51 FIGURE 6: NUMBER OF NEGOTIATIONS. ................................................................................................... 52 FIGURE 7: DIGITALIZATION/EFFECTIVENESS .............................................................................................. 53 FIGURE 8: CHANGE IN NR. OF CONFLICTS ................................................................................................. 57 FIGURE 9: MEANS - PREPARATION. ........................................................................................................... 63 FIGURE 10: MEANS - CONFLICTS. ............................................................................................................... 64 FIGURE 11: MEANS - VALUE. ..................................................................................................................... 64 FIGURE 12: MEANS - COMPREHENSIVENESS. ............................................................................................ 65 FIGURE 13: MEANS – IMPLEMENTATION. ................................................................................................. 67

List of Tables

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF RESEARCH METHODS .......................................................................................... 28 TABLE 2: SELECTED INDEPENDENT VARIABLES OF USE – THE INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATION PROCESS. 38 TABLE 3: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS. CONTINENT + SAMPLE SIZE + COUNTRIES/STATES. .............................. 48 TABLE 4: AGE AND PLACE OF PLACE OF RESIDENCE IN PERCENTAGE. ...................................................... 48 TABLE 5: ROLES ........................................................................................................................................ 51 TABLE 6: CORRELATION MATRIX: PROCESS + PREP. + CONFLICTS + VALUE + COMP. + IMP. .................... 54 TABLE 7: OUTPUT SUMMARY OF THE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS. * SIGNIFICANCE = 0.05 .......... 55 TABLE 8: ALLOCATION OF ANSWERS BETWEEN VARIABLES ...................................................................... 59 TABLE 9: ONE WAY ANOVA - SUM OF VARIABLES. *SIGNIFICANCE =0.05 ................................................ 60

1

1.INTRODUCTION

This section begins by introducing the background of the study and the problem.

Thereafter, the problem formulation and gap in prior research is presented, laying the

foundation for the purpose of the study. Thereafter, the significance and delimitations of

the research are discussed before finally outlining the structure of in which the study

will be presented.

1.1 Background

The former President of the United States, John F. Kennedy (1961) once spoke the

words ‘’let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate’’. That

sentence – involving both a proposal to action as well as careful advice – is a perfect

example of a healthy approach to the aspect of negotiations. Negotiation is a powerful

tool for creating remarkable change and successful business (Atkin & Rinehart, 2006)

and can in fact be considered serving an important role in the world economy (Kabuoh

et al., 2015).

The word negotiation originates from the Latin word negotiari, meaning ‘’to transact

business’’ or accomplish something, where the negotiation is an exchange of

information between two parties with the goal to accomplish a deal beneficial for

either one or both of the counterparts (Alvarez & Kennedy, 2006; Fisher & Ury,

2011). Negotiation can also be defined as an ‘’interactive communication process’’

between two negotiators trying to bargain a deal (Korobin, 2009), where negotiation

often is seen as a skill or core competence. Moreover, negotiation can also be seen as a

process or something that can be developed through constant pursuit of knowledge and

practice. International negotiations, however, are a little more complex and

complicated in its nature. In general, negotiations can be said to be international when

the different parties involved in the negotiation are from different countries, national

cultures, and nationalities (Dupont & Faure, 1991; Zhang & Zhou, 2008). International

business negotiations often involve factors such as geographic distance and legal or

institutional differences between the counterparts (Dupont & Faure, 1991), and can be

including everything from dealing with international affairs or difficult situations such

2

as the current pandemic, to sales negotiations, legal settlements or conflict resolution

(Wertheim, 2002).

Generally, there are two distinctive types of international negotiation: distributive

negotiation and integrative negotiation, which both can be argued to be essential,

depending on the circumstances (Barry & Friedman, 1998). Distributive negotiation

focuses on a win-lose situations and differs from the integrative negotiation by being

more ego-centric and competitive. Integrative negotiations on the other hand, aim to

reach mutual agreement and create a win-win situation, where all parties involved gain

something from the negotiation outcome. In line with integrative negotiation, Fisher,

Ury and Patton (1981) developed the concept of principled negotiation as a mean for

making the negotiation process successful, where the process concerned five general

principles of an integrative negotiation strategy (Fisher, Ury & Patton, 1981; Walton

& McKenzie, 1965). International negotiations are made in international contexts,

which can be described as a negotiation consisting of counterparts from one or more

different countries (Crump, 2006). Thus, the context of international negotiations

varies depending on the number of participants, where a negotiation between three or

more countries creates a multilateral context and negotiations between two countries

creates bilateral context.

Over the last decades, international business negotiations have changed drastically in

line with new technology and constantly changing societies, where the scale and scope

of international business negotiations have advanced significantly as an effect (Meerts,

2015; Weiss, 2006). Digitalization and innovative solutions have increased the number

of international negotiations successively, where more cross-cultural encounters have

taken place and added to the complexity of international negotiations (Faure, 1978).

National culture plays an important and fundamental part in international business and

negotiations (Hofstede, 2011; Saluce, 1999; Hall, 1976). Thus, understanding

similarities and differences between different cultures is vital when operating and

negotiating in international contexts (Leigh & Khakhar, 2015; Shi & Wright, 2001;

Weiss, 2004).

3

Culture can be defined in many ways and have been discussed in relation to

international negotiations throughout the decades. Matsumoto (1996, p.16) defined

culture as ‘’…the set of attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors shared by a group of

people, but different for each individual, communicated from one generation to the

next’’. Moreover, Hofstede (1984) described cultures slightly differently by defining it

as ‘’the collective programming of the mind distinguishing the members of one group

or category of people from others’’, indicating that culture is rather a collective

programming of the mind than something automatically communicated from one

generation to the next. However, Hofstede’s definition has been frequently occurring

in literature related to international negotiations and cross-cultural communication, as

it captures the difference between one or more cultural groups (Bhagat & McQuaid,

1982; Ghauri, 2003).

Hall (1976) developed the concept of low context and high context cultures based on

his previous research in culture and communication, which separated the two aspects

of how verbal and non-verbal communication were used across different national

cultures. Hofstede (1984) then expanded the research of national culture across and

identified five cultural dimensions separating national cultures, where each dimension

represented two sides of the same coin. These cultural dimensions consisted of the

power distance index (PDI), individualism versus collectivism (IDV), masculinity

versus femininity (MAS), the uncertainty avoidance index (UAI), and long-term

orientation versus short-term normative orientation (LTO). Additionally, a sixth

dimension of indulgence versus restraint (IVR) was added by the influence of Minkov

(2007) to broaden the aspects of national culture even further, examining natural

human drives and pleasures. However, even if the majority of research arguing

negotiation being an art of its own, not all argue for culture and Hofstede’s dimensions

playing a fundamental role in international business negotiations and there are several

studies in the topic and analysis of negotiation (Zartman, 1993).

Since the start of December 2019, the entire world has been affected by the rapidly

spreading pandemic caused by Covid-19, also known as SARS-CoV-2 or simply put –

the coronavirus (WHO, 2020). Countries all over the world have tried to cope with the

spread of the virus as best as possible, including implementations of mass restrictions

and new pandemics laws (Burris, Anderson & Wagenaar, 2021). However, none of

4

either all businesses or negotiators were prepared for such a storm, leading to

disastrous consequences such as unemployment and bankruptcy (Multikani, 2020;

Brammer et al., 2020). Working remotely from home quickly became the new reality

for majority of the global workforce, and international negotiations switched from the

psychical negotiation table to more virtual environments (Wang, 2020).

International negotiations and its process have been discussed from several viewpoints

throughout previous studies, depending on the type and characteristics of the

international negotiation. Danciu (2010) argues for the negotiation process being

divided into four stages, whereas Ghauri (2003) instead argued for the negotiation

process best being divided into three major parts: pre-negotiation, face-to-face

negotiation, and post-negotiation. Each phase is then represented by different activities

such as building trust and bargaining, creating a more elaborated and detailed overall

process. Another way of dividing the negotiation process is by adapting the viewpoint

of Deresky (2006), who argued for the process being divided into five major stages

(2003), which fully align with the concept of Best Negotiation Practices (BNPS) that

divides the process into being a collaborative and ongoing process of preparation,

information exchange and validation, bargaining, conclusion, and execution

(Watershed, 2021).

Based on what has been stated above, many interesting aspects of the process of

international negotiations in relation to a pandemic is yet to be discovered, as the

phenomenon of Covid-19 is relatively new. While previous research has covered

several topics within the area of international negotiations, prior research related to

civil emergencies such as pandemics and its profound complications for business in

society falls behind and is profoundly limited (Ballesteros & Gatignon, 2019).

Therefore, looking at the international negotiation process across different continents

becomes and interesting topic and the question about how Covid-19 has affected the

international negotiation process arise.

5

1.2 Problematization

The major shift into more digitalized environment has as previously mentioned, forced

negotiators to work more remotely and adapt according to the new pandemic laws and

legal restrictions (Burris et al., 2021; Wang, 2020). Such a major shift in working

environment could be argued creating an increased risk for misunderstandings and

conflicts between international negotiators, as all countries have been coping with the

virus differently (Korac-Kakabadse et al., 2001; Luo, 1999). Digitalization has in fact

been shown to infiltrate on almost every aspect of negotiation, as it increases the risk for

misunderstandings and increased conflicts compared to negotiations held physically

(Misra, 2014). Where the verbal practitioners of culture still can be assessed through

negotiating remotely, the important interactions of the non-verbal communication are

suppressed (Danciu, 2010). Thus, it might become harder for the counterparts to

optimally adapt, which in turn increases the risk for cultural clashes and conflicts

(Semnani-Azad & Adair, 2011).

Physical meetings serve an important part in the negotiation process when negotiating

internationally, often including cultural rituals and building strong social relationships

(Ghauri, 2003). During the pre-negotiation phase, informal topics and communication is

often used as a way of building trust and understanding the other counterpart wants and

needs (Ghauri, 2003). Inviting the other party to the home office in which the

negotiation will be held is a normal part of international business and serves as a strong

foundation for how strong the social relationships will be, which often increases the

chances for reaching a successful agreement (Salacuse, 1999). Long-lasting

relationships are among some cultures in fact, considered as more important than

reaching a profitable agreement, whereas other cultures are more focus on the financial

profits (Ghauri, 2003). The pandemic making it impossible for most negotiators to

travel and interact in home-office negotiations, can be argued to possibly have had

negative impacts on both relationships and overall agreements. Increased conflicts or

failing to build a thrustful relationship might lead to lost agreements and the loss of

future business opportunities (Ghauri, 2003).

National culture having an enormous impact on both values and communication makes

it utterly important to how culture impacts the international negotiation process

(Salacuse, 2004; Weiss, 2004; Ghauri, 2003; Hall, 1959), as verbal and non-verbal

6

communication are being used differently across national cultures (Hall, 1976;

Hofstede, 2011). While negotiations during the pandemic still enables verbal

communication working online, non-verbal communication such as eye-contact and

body language becomes suppressed and therefore leap the risk of being lost due to the

decrease in physical meetings.

The ability to successfully negotiate is an important management mechanism in

resolving possible conflicts, building business relations, and reaching agreements (Atkin

& Rinehart, 2006) could therefore be argued enough reason for its value in relation to

the research topic. However, national culture as a factor in international business

negotiations during pandemics are still yet to be discovered. It can be thought that

national culture affects how different countries cope with the effects of Covid-19

differently, and that this as a result might affect the process of international negotiations

in such. Mastering the process of international negotiations in an effective way during a

pandemic therefore becomes vital for businesses operating internationally (Manrai,

2010; Kim, 2017). Moreover, (Chakraborty & Maity, 2020) argues for Covid-19 being a

threat only resolved by a global response with prevention and collaboration, which

makes it utterly important to understand how the pandemic has affected the international

negotiation process as it can be used as a tool to keep peace and resolve corona-related

issues more efficiently. Thus, the power and art of international negotiations becomes

extremely important when negotiating about peace or pandemic-related topics

(Salacuse, 1999).

Research has as previously mentioned, failed to relate the profound complications of

pandemics to the perplex process and concept of international negotiations (Ballesteros

& Gatignon, 2019). Therefore, further research and investigation on pandemics and its

relation to international negotiations can be argued a necessity to cope with the current

as well as future pandemics. As a result, this study aims to investigate how Covid-19

has affected the international negotiation process by examining negotiators own

personal reflections on the subject and relies upon the belief that there is room for

improvement within the research of the topic area. Since the global pandemic can be

considered severe and disastrous, it can further be argued that a deeper understanding of

how the pandemic has affected international negotiations and its outcome could help

prevent further disasters, and perhaps even serve as a component in how to better cope

7

with the current global pandemic of Covid-19.

1.3 Purpose

The purpose of the study is to investigate how Covid-19 has affected the international

negotiation process and to research whether or not there is a connection between the

different stages and the overall international negotiation process. Additionally, the study

aims to question whether there are some differences between Covid-19’s effect on the

international negotiation process between continents. Moreover, the study aims to give a

deeper understanding and knowledge about international negotiations in relation to

pandemics, so that negotiations operating internationally better can cope with the

restrictions and distress of a future pandemic. The ultimate goal is however, to fill the

research-gap and contribute with new and valuable information to the written literature

within international negotiations during pandemics.

To best capture the purpose of the study, the following research questions will be asked

to answer the main question about how the international negotiation process has been

affected by Covid-19:

• How has Covid-19 affected the international negotiation process?

§ Is there a connection between the process variables and a change in the

overall international negotiation process?

§ Has Covid-19 affected the international negotiation process differently

between continents?

8

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In this section, the theoretical framework of the study is presented. The section begins

by introducing international business negotiation as a concept, followed by an

elaboration of the theories within negotiation strategy, international negotiation,

process, and national culture. The previously mentioned concepts are then laying the

foundation for the conceptual framework that will serve as an underlying basis for the

whole study.

2.1 International business negotiations

The concept of international negotiations can be defined in many different ways and

according to Meerts (2015) be included in any part of social science where the

negotiation has the goal to accomplish an agreement beneficial for one or more

counterparts (Alvarez & Kennedy, 2006; Fisher & Ury, 2011). Simply put, international

negotiations can be defined as negotiations including parties from different countries,

national cultures, and nationalities (Dupont & Faure, 1991), where the different

counterpart’s country of residence does not equal the one of its opposite. Additionally,

Long, Javidi, & Normore (2016) defines international negotiation as ‘’A communication

function of international relations that is used for the purpose of mutual adaptation in

order to ‘accomplish specific goals’’, whereas negotiation itself can Herbig (1997)

states, be defined as ‘’…the process by which at least two parties try to reach

agreement on matters of mutual interests’’.

In general, international negotiations serve as a natural part of international business and

globalization, where an expansion into global markets require an understanding of how

to negotiate cross-culturally (Herbig, 1997). Thus, international negotiations often

require a great deal of preparation and planning to achieve overall success and can as

previously mentioned, include everything from price negotiations to conflict resolution

(Moor & Weigand, 2004). Moreover, international negotiations include factors such as

geographic distance and legal or institutional differences to consider (Dupont & Faure,

1991).

9

In today’s complex and dynamic international environment, businesses have to rely on

people and decisions whom they have no direct control over (Fisher, Ury, & Patton,

1981), which makes negotiation a compelling and crucial factor in getting to what we

want, making it a critical skill to master. Previous research related to international

negotiations have merely been about negotiation behavior and strategies, where theories

held different opinions on the topic. Some researchers argue that building strong

relationships in all cultures is the right way to go for a successful and sustainable

negotiation outcome, whereas others argue that negotiators should focus on either the

relationship or the deal while adapting after each significant culture (Zhang & Zhou,

2008; Lee, 2007). Moreover, international negotiators are often forced to adapt and

navigate through different cultures, where different cultural aspects and factors such as

Hofstede’s (1980) individualism vs. collectivism and Hall’s (1959) high-context versus

low-context culture affects the negotiation process.

2.2 Negotiation strategy

International negotiations often require a set strategy, which according to Watkins

(2002) should be broken down depending on type of negotiation as well as on what type

of parties are involved in the negotiation. In global crisis such as a pandemic, the

strategic approach often requires major changes in general strategic behavior, where

changes in strategies related to international negotiations are no exception (MacKay,

2020). However, negotiation strategies are in generally used throughout the whole

negotiation process and may or may not have an adaptable approach (Odell, 2002),

which makes it relevant to focus on the most commonly used and relevant strategy

throughout this study, the integrative negotiation (Bartos, 1995).

As previously mentioned, the international negotiation can be seen as a communication

process between one or more counterparts across countries (Gelfand & Brett, 2004;

Dupont & Faure, 1991; Hall, 1959) and therefore fully relies on communication

itself. International negotiation is generally divided into form of distributive negotiation

and integrative negotiation, where the former includes an integrative/collaborative

negotiation strategy and the latter and distributive/competitive negotiation strategy of its

own (Bartos, 1995). The behavioral theory and theoretical framework in negotiations

10

(Walton & McKersie, 1965; Cutcher-Gershenfeld & Kochan, 2015) shows the great

importance of choosing either a distributive (positional/adversarial) or integrative

(principled/collaborative) approach to the strategic process of international negotiations.

A distributive/adversarial negotiation strategy focuses more on individual gain for each

separate party, where a win-lose situation naturally occurs as a consequence. Therefore,

the distributive negotiation strategy is more competitive compared to the integrative

strategy and is only preferred in situations that require limited resources. However,

distributive negotiation strategy tends to only discuss one problem at a time and is often

based on self-interest. There is often a low level of trust in the other counterpart and the

objectives are often focused on increasing one’s advantages in either price or cost

(Rubin & Brown, 1975). In this study however, the integrative strategy will be in focus

when investigating how Covid-19 has affected the international negotiation process, as

it is the most commonly used (Bartos, 1995).

2.2.1 Integrative negotiation strategy

Integrative and disruptive negotiation strategies in the negotiation process are as

previously mentioned, two key types of how the negotiation is undertaken, where the

integration type can be divided into two subcategories consisting of the emotional

integrative and the impersonal integrative negotiator (Benetti, Ogliastri, Caputo, 2021).

In international business negotiations, the style and strategy of negotiation depend on

factors such as national culture and emotional intelligence (Hofstede, 2011; Habibi &

Damasio, 2014).

The integrative strategy aims to reach a win-win situation where the negotiation

outcome reaches a mutual and satisfactory outcome (Walton & McKenzie, 1965).

Integrative agreements and negotiation style is based upon supportive attitudes,

behavioral foundations, and information foundation. Openness and shared interests

between the different parties as well as setting clear objectives, are often aligned with

reaching a common goal and finding mutual agreement. Problems are seen as something

that needs to be resolved to reach commitment and satisfy shared interests, which

differs from its opposite, the distribute strategy (Bartos, 1995). Moreover, integrative

negotiations are ongoing processes where trust and long-term relationships are vital.

11

2.2.2 Principled Negotiation

In line with the integrative negotiation strategy of international negotiations lay the

principles of negotiation created by Fisher, Ury and Patton (1981). According to the

theory of principled negotiation, the negotiation process should follow general

principles to reach success and find mutual agreement. Even if the principled

negotiation was not originally intended for international negotiations, it is still

applicable internationally as it can be translated into cross-cultural transactions (Fisher

& Ury, 1984). The basis of negotiation remains the same regardless of where or what

the negotiation is about, making principled negotiation relevant in the basis of this

study. Principled negotiation is overall a commonly used strategy and can be used in all

situations of negotiation, including one or more parties. Therefore, it is used in this

study as a general framework which the research will be based upon. Generally,

principled negotiation strategy usually contributes to a better negotiation outcome.

Additionally, an international negotiation process should be such that the principles are

judged by three main criteria. First, the negotiation should seek to reach a win-win

situation and sensible agreement. Second, the negotiation should be efficient and avoid

any inefficiencies and third, the negotiation should be such that it improves or remains

the business relationship in a positive manner (Fisher, Ury & Patton, 1981).

Fisher, Ury & Patton (1981) describes a problem with positions that often occur in

negotiation, where the process of positional bargaining represents a win-lose situation

where one party wins and the other one does not. Positional bargaining is an issue in the

negotiation process for four main reasons where it first creates inefficiency in means of

reaching agreement. Then, it makes the negotiators neglect the other party’s interest,

which might create further conflict and leads to the third, that ego tends to be involved

in creating an egotistical and selfish way of negotiation. Positional bargaining also

encourages boldness which might harm the business relationship on both a short-term

and a long-term horizon, making it equal to a pitfall for future agreements or a

sustainable business relationship. Fisher, Ury & Patton (1981) therefor created a theory

relaying upon four basic prescriptions for principled negotiation, which all can be used

by negotiators worldwide and by everyone seeking a tool for successful negotiation

outcomes and argues for a good agreement being one that is both wise and efficient.

12

Building strong and healthy relationships, satisfactory agreements, and long-term

partnerships works in favor of all parties involved in an international negotiation. Thus,

principled negotiation is an excellent framework in the theories for successful

negotiation.

Separate the people from the problem

To effectively deal with Covid-19, the negotiators need to separate the people from the

problem by addressing both the problem factor and the people factor separately and

instead put effort into recognizing other’s uniqueness. We are all different, with

different personalities and cultural backgrounds, which create an importance of

awareness and attentiveness of the other parties needs in the current situation of the

worldwide pandemic. It’s therefore utterly important to focus on reaching a common

goal and resolving the situation by coming up with a solution and confronting it

together instead of confronting each other (Fisher & Ury, 1984).

One important thing to remember is that all negotiators are people, and all international

negotiations deal with human beings. Emotions, values, and attitudes all differ from

person to person and various from every personality. People are complex, and so are

dealing with one another in such a wide dimensional area as in international business

negotiations. Separating the people from the problem and building working

relationships therefore helps in keeping a good tone and achieving mutual agreement

and satisfactory outcomes (Fisher & Ury, 1984).

Focus on interest (not position)

Focusing on positions means that the negotiator focuses on the standpoint or perspective

in a particular conflict, which inquires the opposite points of view in a conflict and

therefore often creates more negative impact than any positive. Fisher & Ury (1984)

instead suggests focusing on the interests behind those positions rather than on the

position itself, which refers to the relevant needs and values of the people involved.

The most common form of negotiation depends on successfully taking and then giving

up a particular position (Fisher & Ury, 1984). Positional bargaining fails to meet the

criteria and produces unwise outcomes, where arguing over positions endangers an

ongoing relationship. Positional bargaining becomes a contest of will, where each side

13

tries to win the position. Relationships may break, businesses might end, and great

damage can be made by using positional bargaining as a negotiation strategy.

Invent options for mutual gains

Many negotiators enter a negotiation with a competitive mindset and focus on a win-

lose situation, where one side loses and the other wins. This often creates conflicts and

can cause damaging effects on business and its relationships. Fisher, Ury and Patton

(1981) instead suggested inventing options for mutual gains, where the overall goal was

to reach mutual agreement and leave the negotiation table with a feeling of victory for

both sides and to satisfy both parties. Furthermore, they also suggest that all negotiators

need to expand their opinions to thinking there’s just one simple best solution and

instead look at all possible solutions for mutual gain.

Insist on objective criteria

By insisting on using an objective criterion, Fisher, Ury and Patton (1981) argue for the

importance of understanding all parties’ interests. Effective negotiation requires

objective criteria to be used to settle different interests, where all parties need to search

for an objective criterion that will help them view their conflict with an unbiased lens.

2.3 National culture

Understanding cultural differences and corporate culture is often an important skill for

an international company to master, as national culture can be argued constant and

unchangeable (Hofstede, 1980). Making sure that products meet and adjust to the

cultural differences are lethal when seeking for success abroad (Hofstede, 2011). The

process of an international business negotiation practice depends on a number of factors

such as culture, communication, gender, and interest of outcomes. The most profound

of these factors is cultural differences, which makes negotiations directly dependent

upon culture and communication as culture dictates the nature of communication and

communication dictates negotiation (Zhang & Zhou, 2008; Danciu, 2010). Culture

affects the communication and negotiation process, negotiation style, and negotiation

outcome, which will be elaborated more upon below through examining high and low

context cultures as well as Hofstede’s cultural dimensions.

14

National culture has been discussed as a factor and in relation to international

negotiations before. A study conducted by Andersson and Mets (2020) examined how

and to what extent different cultures influence the international negotiation process and

is therefore highly applicable in this study. As many researchers, Hall (1959) argued

that the cultural aspects of communication are equal to communication itself.

Additionally, he discussed verbal and non-verbal communication across cultures and

stressed cultures as language of its own. Non-verbal communication is defined as

proxemics, chronemics, and kinesics and refers to non-verbal language such as body

language, eye-contact and gestures (Hall, 1959). To best understand how Covid-19 has

affected the international negotiation process, high versus low context cultures as well

as Hofstede’s cultural dimension will the main area of focus when discussing national

culture in the process of international negotiations, where culture as previously

mentioned are viewed upon as Hoftstede (1980) defined it, a collective programming

mentally that separates one group from the other. The mental programming differs

cross-culturally and between individuals, where the importance of understanding

different cultures lay in comparing the cultures again each other (Hoftstede, 2011;

Minkov, 2007). Thus, the concept of culture becomes a highly relevant tool when

investigating how a pandemic has affected the international negotiation process as well

as if this affect has differed between continents.

2.3.1 High-Context and Low-Context Culture

When negotiating and thus communicating internationally, two major differences can

according to Hall (1976) be drawn between two broad categories of cultures. These are

the highly distinctive differences between high context and low context cultures, which

are based on the cultural framework developed by the anthropologist Edward T. Hall

(1976). His work underlies many previously written studies and is commonly used

when discussing national cultures and its complex nature (Rogers et al. 2002). Proposed

that cultures could be divided into these two categories, the focus and primary

difference lay in the verbal and nonverbal communication of the practitioners (Hall,

1956).

15

In high context cultures, communication is more nonverbal compared to countries with

low context cultures, where communication often is more direct (Nishimura, Nevgi, &

Seppo, 2013) and the information mostly implicit (Hofstede, 2011). Comparatively, in

low context cultures, communication is less verbal compared to countries with high

context culture (Nishimura, Nevgi, & Seppo, 2013) and most of the information is

explicit (Hofstede, 2011). The cultural differences within international negotiations are

based on cultural patterns that consist among different cultures (Danciu, 2010) where

national culture as mentioned before, influence international negotiations in ways of

how the counterparts interact and communicate. Factors such as attitude against time,

mimicry, body language, and eye-contact are all expressed differently depending on the

national culture of the negotiators (Hall, 1976). Non-verbal communication is often

executed to a higher extent in high context cultures such as Italy, China, Japan, and

African and Arab countries, whereas low context cultures such as Sweden, Norway,

Germany, and the United States does not focus too much on non-verbal communication

(Hollensen, 2012; Keegan et al., 1996).

2.3.2. Cultural dimensions

One commonly used model of national cultures is Hofstede’s (1980) five-dimensional

model which as previously mentioned, divides national culture into five dimensions

consisting of the power distance index (PDI), the uncertainty avoidance index (UAI),

individualism versus collectivism (IDV), masculinity versus femininity (MAS), and

long-term versus short-term orientation (LTO). Together these dimensions define a

country’s cultural behavior and actions in the negotiations process, which makes it a

highly relevant model to use in this study when comparing and researching how Covid-

19 has affected the process of international negotiations (Ghauri, 2003). However,

Minkov (2007) allowed adding a sixth and new dimension to give an even broader

approach to the cultural dimensions of natural culture. Thus, the sixth principle of

Indulgence versus Restraint (IR) will be discussed in relation to international

negotiation in this thesis. It is important to stress that all statements of low and high are

generalizations and never absolute compared to the constantly changing world we live

in today (Hofstede, 2011). Overall, the six dimensions are measured on a scale from

0-100, where a score of 50 is a mid-level and everything under 50 considered as

relatively low. If a country scores over 50 on the scale, the cultural scores are

16

represented as relatively high (Hofstede, 1980). Easily put – the higher the number, the

higher the cultural scores.

Power distance (PDI)

Power distance refers to how much power a person exerts over to other persons than

themselves and can be defined as ‘’the extent to which the less powerful members of

institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is

distributed unequally’’ (Hofstede, 1980). Power in the cultural dimension is about to

what extent a person influences and has power over other people, leading to different

values about power distribution and behavior among negotiators. A high score on this

scale represents a high power distance whereas a lower score represents a lower power

distance within the national culture (Hofstede, 1980).

In societies with low power distance, the use of power is connected to the terms of what

is viewed as good or evil and power is expected to be distributed equally between

members of a group (Hofstede, 1980). Children are often treated as equals and there is a

small distance between elderly and young people in terms of respect. In countries with

small power distance, corruption is considered rare and the income distribution between

habitants are quite even (Hofstede, 1980). Countries who score low on the power

distance index are Australia, Scandinavian countries, UK, Ireland, and Canada and The

United States of America (Hofstede, 2021).

On the other hand, countries with a high level of power distance experience the

opposite. A high power distance does in fact, indicate a high level of emotional distance

between the different layers of hierarchy in a group (Basabe & Ros, 2005), where power

is the basis of society and does not rely on what is considered good or evil (Hofstede,

1980). The gap between elderly and youths in terms of respect and fear is large and the

elderly are both respected and feared compared to in countries with small power

distance. Moreover, corruption is normalized, and the religions are often hierarchized

(Hofstede, 2011). Countries scoring generally high on the PDI are many Asian countries

such as China, India, Vietnam, Hong-Kong, and Philippines (Hofstede, 2021).

17

Uncertainty avoidance (UAI)

Uncertainty avoidance refers to how cultures deal with uncertainty and differs from

country to country. A country which individuals scores high on uncertainty avoidance

will most likely feel very uncomfortable in ambiguous or uncertain situations, whereas

individuals who score low on uncertainty avoidance are more likely willing to take

higher risks and deal with a greater amount of uncertainty (Hofstede, 1980).

Low uncertainty avoidance is characterized by people being comfortable with a

changing, volatile, and ambiguous environment around then (Hofstede, 1980). Rules are

seldom appreciated, and the individuals are more likely to handle a higher extent of

stress compared to individuals scoring high on the same scale. Moreover, a low

uncertainty avoidance often aligns with an overall relaxed approach with relativism and

empiricism, being present in religious beliefs and science (Hofstede, 2011). Countries

scoring low on the UAI are India, as well as Scandinavian countries, UK, and China

(Hofstede, 2021).

To compare, countries with high uncertainty avoidance avoid everything that can raise

the feeling of uncertainty. People often live with high levels of stress and anxiety and

are quite resistant towards change in general. The need for control and knowledge about

a situation is marked and rules and laws are often preferred to gain clarity (Hofstede,

2011). Examples of countries scoring high on the UAI are Brazil, Bulgaria, and Japan,

who all scores over 50 on the dimensional scale (Hofstede, 2021).

Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV)

The individualism versus Collectivism dimension of national culture refers to how

individuals see themselves and affects the negotiators attitudes towards business

relationships as well as their preferences to conflict resolution. (Hofstede, 1980).

Individualism and collectivism refer to two opposites characteristics of national culture,

where a country scoring high in this dimension indicates a strong individualism and

countries scoring low indicates a more collectivistic approach (Hofstede, 1980).

Collectivistic countries scoring low on the IDV are primarily focused on the group prior

to the individual (Hofstede, 1980). The sense of ‘’we´´ are strong and there is often a

strong urge to belong as a member of a group, where loyalty and unselfishness are

18

crucial factors to belonging. The self-image is primarily defined in terms of what group

the individual is part of, rather than as a consequence of oneself (Hofstede, 1980). A

country with a high level of collectivism on the other hand, has a primarily view upon

the individual as a part of a group, where the interest of the dyad goes before one’s

personal interests (Hofstede, 2011). Countries generally scoring low on individualism

and therefore can be said to be collectivistic are for example Brazil, China, Vietnam,

Greece, and Russia (Hofstede, 2021).

A culture with a higher level of individualism has a self-concept of viewing themselves

primarily as individuals. In individualistic countries, the focus lays more on the

individual than the group and there is a strong self of ‘’I’’ compared to ‘’we’’, as

previously mentioned being part of more collectivistic countries (Hofstede, 1980).

Others are often viewed as individuals rather than a part of a group and the right to

personal opinions and privacy is higher compared to its opposite. Moreover, individuals

are to a higher extent expected to take care of themselves and not rely on the group to

do so. Individualistic countries in general, are more centered on one’s family and self,

compared to collectivistic countries where the focus is reversed (Hofstede, 1980).

Looking at the IDV, some countries with a generally high level of individualism are

UK, Italy, Germany, France, US, and all Scandinavian countries (Hofstede, 2021).

Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS)

The masculinity dimension refers to the cultural dimension of whether individuals have

material (labeled masculine) or emotional (labeled feminine) preferences for

achievement and success (Hofstede, 1980), where both refers to two polar opposites of

national culture that can be referred to as either tough or tender.

In feminine countries, the emotional differentiation between genders is generally

minimal and both men and women are allowed and expected to show emotions and be

openly caring (Hofstede, 2011). Work-life balance is prioritized and the gender equality

in both work and family is certain. Cooperation and caring for others are preferred and

the national culture is as Hofstede (1980) formulated it, quite consensus oriented.

Scandinavian countries are a perfect example of feminine countries, where Sweden,

Norway, and Denmark score a 5, 8, and 16 out of 100 in masculinity on MAS, which

19

refers to a high level of femininity (Hofstede, 2021). Moreover, Netherlands, Russia,

and Finland are other examples of countries that can be considered having feminine

characteristics (Hofstede, 2021).

In reverse, masculine countries have a maximum differentiation between genders when

it comes to emotional, social, and overall role in society. Women are considered to be

emotional beings and men are often expected to work hard and deal with hardship and

raw facts (Hofstede, 1980). Moreover, the overall society is quite competitive, where

achievement and materialism often are seen as equal rewards to success (Hofstede,

1980). Many European countries such as Italy, Germany, UK, and Ireland together with

Asian countries such as Japan, China, Hong-Kong and Philippines. Moreover, majority

of United states and Australia have masculinity scores over 50 as well as the formers,

which all makes them masculine countries (Hofstede, 2021).

Long-term versus Short-term orientation (LTO)

This dimension of Hofstede’s dimensional culture refers to ‘’how every society has to

maintain some links with its own past while dealing with challenges of the present and

future’’ (Hofstede, 1980). Long-term versus short-term orientation refers to the

orientation of the societies and is strongly linked with economic growth and can also be

referred to as the pragmatic versus normative (PRA) or Monumentalism (short-term)

versus Flexhumility (long-term) cultural dimension (Hofstede, 2021). Generally, a low

score or the dimensional scale indicates short-term orientation and a high score a more

long-term orientation (Hofstede, 1980).

Countries with short-term orientation tend to have a more short-term focus compared to

countries with the opposite (Hofstede, 1980). The overall view on things is often quite

conservative, and traditions are often kept alive more efficiently (Hofstede, 1980). Some

countries with a score belove 50 on the dimensional scale are Greece, Egypt, and Brazil,

and Argentina (Hofstede, 2021).

Countries with long-term orientation are future-oriented and focus on the long-term

aspects of life. The savings quote is usually significantly higher compared to its

opposite and success is determined by effort rather than luck. Moreover, economic

growth often thrives in countries with a long-term orientation and there is a general

20

interest in learning from other countries as well (Hofstede, 2011). To give an example,

some countries with an indication of having a more long-term orientation are Japan,

China, and US, which all scales above 80 on the dimensional scale of long-term

orientation (Hofstede, 2021).

Indulgence versus Restraint (IR)

The sixth dimension added to the previous five is the dimension of indulgence versus

restraint (IR). Labeled by Minkov (2007), IR refers to the emotional states and values of

a country’s national culture, where indulgence refers to more freedom and restrain for

stricter social norms (Hofstede, 2011).

In indulgent societies, freedom and allowance to have fun and seeking please is more

accepted and there is a relatively free gratification of what ones enjoys (Minkov, 2007).

Moreover, indulgent societies can be argued to often include individuals who encounter

higher levels of independence and positive attitude (Hofstede, 2011). Countries with

high scores on the scale of this dimensions are Australia, US, several African countries,

and Canada (Hofstede, 2021).

In restrained societies, the level of happiness is considerably low compared to its

previous opposite. Codependency and lack of personal responsibility for one’s life is

often argued to be a common case in these types of societies. Moreover, there is a

relatively negative approach where positive emotions are considered luxury rather than

being normalized (Hofstede, 2011). Countries that score as restraint are for example

Egypt, Bulgaria, Italy, China, India, and Vietnam (Hofstede, 2021). To give a better

overview of the concept, a representation of the six dimensions will be presented in the

figure 1 below.

21

Figure 1: Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (own interpretation)

2.4 The international negotiation process

As Sergeev (1991) puts it ‘’the study of negotiation processes is one of the most

complicated fields of political science’’, which can be argued to make the topic of

negotiations in international contexts even more complex. International negotiation

processes can be defined in several ways. First, it is important to acknowledge that

international negotiations require cross-cultural communication and a mutual

understanding of the people around the bargaining table, where all cultures have

different styles and strategies of negotiating, different outlook of life and different

communication styles (Ghauri, 2003; Hall, 1959). The negotiation process has as

previously mentioned been researched and discussed in relation to international

business throughout the decades, where the fragmenting approach has been differently

adopted by researchers and can be broken down differently depending on various

viewpoints (Andersson & Mets, 2019). However, this study was conducted with the

principled negotiation (Fisher & Ury, 1981) and the three phases international

negotiation of pre-negotiation, face-to-face negotiation, and post-negotiation (Ghuari,

22

2003) as well as the five stages preparation, information-exchange, bargaining, closing,

and execution (Watershed, 2021; Deresky, 2006) in mind.

Principled negotiation when used correctly, contributes to a successful negotiation

process and possible outcome and is a widely used concept around the world, making it

serve as a fundamental basis in the framework of this study. To give a better overview

of the international negotiation process and its three phases and five stages, please see

Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: The stages of the international negotiation process (own model)

2.4.1. Pre-negotiation

Preparation

The first part of the pre-negotiation process is preparation (Dereksky, 2006; Cullen &

Paraboteeh, 2008). Pre-negotiation refers to the preparation phase that takes place

before a negotiation encounters and often lays the ground for a successful negotiation

process (Ghauri, 2003). The pre-negotiation starts with the simple decision of

participation and follows with the process of gathering information, relationship-

building, planning and evaluating the negotiation strategy. The pre-negotiation is often a

social and rather informal part of the bargaining process, where different negotiators

build social relationships and prepare for the proceeding phase of face-to-face

Pre-negotiation Face-to-face negotiation Post-negotiation

Preparation Bargaining ExecutionInformation-exchange Closing

Preparation Conflicts Value Comprehensiveness Implementation

International Negotiation Process

23

negotiation (Salacuse, 1999; Ghauri & Usunier, 1996; Ghuari; 2003). The pre-

negotiation phase can differ extremely from culture to culture and varies depending on

each culture’s eventual rituals. Whereas some invite the counterpart to the office space

for relationship building, others have certain ways of organizing the whole pre-

negotiation and its internal activities. Respecting, understanding and adapting to

different cultural differences in the pre-negotiation phase is therefore a building block to

a successfully conducted negotiation (Ghuari, 2003).

Informal meetings are often held to develop informal relationships in the form of

building trust and confidence (Ghuari, 2003). During covid-19, the option of inviting

one another over to the physical office/country has reduced due to travel restrictions and

negotiations fully held online. Here, the negotiators familiarize themselves with the

other counterpart by doing researching and gaining information about the other party’s

background and context as well as preparing important strategies, deciding and

evaluating on one’s best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA), possible trade-

offs and desired outcomes (Ghauri, 2003; Deresky, 2006). Negotiators are expected to

gather relevant information and understand what type of counterpart they are meeting.

Understanding each other’s differences and similarities lays the ground for a successful

negotiation (Deresky, 2006; Rubin & Brown, 1975).).

Better preparation often equals a better negotiation strategy, where identifying potential

value and developing a well-informed fact-base is key as well as understanding cultural

differences, preparing, and researching serves as a vital part in the first phase of the

international negotiation process.

Thompson, Lucas, and Hall (2014) argue that negotiators often fail to create mutual

value for each party and therefore lose the opportunity to create even better and more

mutually beneficial outcomes and argue that the reason for this is a lack of

understanding for the negotiating partner. In times like the current global pandemic, this

could be argued the reason for possible conflict because of the current confusion. On the

other hand, according to MacKay (2020), strategy can be seen as a winning factor in

surviving difficult times consisting of a lot of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and

ambiguity.

24

Information exchange and validation

In the second phase of pre-negotiation, information exchange and relationship building

take place, which is vital in building trust and succeeding with the overall negotiation

(Dereksky, 2006; Cullen & Paraboteeh, 2008). Here, the negotiators exchange

information about their initial process, interests and thoughts around the upcoming

bargaining. Additionally, information and different perceptions about negotiation goals

and aims are communicated and set. The pre-negotiation stage is an important part in

the negotiation process as it prepares the counterparts for the upcoming bargaining.

Intelligence gathering is conducted, negotiation objectives specified and clarified, and

strategy and tactics are set (Dereksky, 2006; Cullen & Paraboteeh, 2008; Rubin &

Brown, 1975). In the information exchange and validation phase, focus typically goes

on discovering and creating value, assessing interests and building the trust even

further. Moreover, it is a stage where position and interest are presented (Watershed,

2021) and knowledge and understanding about the other counterpart’s culture, as what

worked in one country will not automatically be replicable in others (Ghauri, 2003;

Salacuse, 1999).

During the stage of information exchange and validation, conflicts often arise. Since

Conflicts is a natural part of the negotiation process and can occur in all stages as well

as outside the negotiation table. Sometimes the negotiation is all about conflict

resolution and sometimes the conflicts arise during the negotiation. Conflicts on its own

is a process where disagreement among the negotiators occur (Wall & Callister, 1995),

and should be resolved and understood to not create challenging or unnecessarily

negative situation. Three types of conflicts often arise within organizations and between

negotiators, which are: intrapersonal conflict, interpersonal conflict, and intergroup

conflict (Wall & Callister, 1995). Conflicts in general are often viewed as negative, but

a moderate number of conflicts in the negotiation can actually lead to positive effects in

an organization such as increased performance (Amason, 1996).

25

2.4.2 Face-to-face negotiation

Bargaining

Face-to face negotiation refers to the actual bargaining process of interaction. Here, the

counterparts perform the actual negotiation in three stages. First, the negotiation is

being introduced and the agreement of agenda as well as rules and procedures are set.

Thereafter the integrative (or distributive) negotiation is performed and thereafter the

face-to-face negotiation finalizes with an agreement of common goals (Rubin & Brown,

1975). The negotiation also assesses problem identification and reviewing, and

reconsideration of the agreement is made. If neither side is willing to give in or reach

mutual agreement, a deadlock arises (Rubin & Brown, 1975). Moreover, different

perceptions and BATNA: s that were not presented in the preparation phase will come

to light. The negotiation strategy is executed and verbal as well as non-verbal

communication is taking place. Maintaining a flexible approach and coming towards a

mutual agreement is fundamental in this part, as it determines how the negotiation is

closed (Ghauri, 2003).

In the bargaining phase, value is created and distributed, interests addressed, and

concessions created and managed. In integrative negotiations such as those in this study,

bargaining is a process of collaboration and value creation, where a ‘’give-and-take’’

situations occur (Ghauri, 2003). Here, the goal is to create mutual advantages where real

value can be both create and captured. When creating value, it is utterly important for

the negotiators to both inhabit great listeners and communicator skills as well as cross-

cultural communication abilities. While creating value, emotions are often expressed in

the negotiation process and the relationship between the negotiators either strengthened

or weakened depending on each unique situation. Important to note is that during

digitalization, this face-to-face value creation can be seen as the negotiations time

online and does not necessarily require each counterpart’s physical presence (Ghauri,

2003).

26

Conclusion/closing

In the fourth stage of the international negotiation process, the negotiation is concluded,

and the deal closed (Ghauri, 2003). Value is being captured, interest confirmed and

possible met, and the bargaining of the negotiation process is coming to an end. Here,

an agreement is often reached, and execution is being discussed. Moreover, all parties

are writing down a comprehensive summary of the agreement where common interests

are being stated. Generally, this is the stage where the negotiators thank each other and

leave the negotiation table.

2.4.3 Post-Negotiation

Execution

The final part of a negotiation process consists of post-negotiation, which as mentioned

before is characterized by an integrative approach. This stage emphasizes the

negotiation outcome and its alignment with the counterpart’s general objectives and

goals in mind (Ghuari, 2003), where the agreement should have been based on a

problem-solving approach to mutual agreement and reaching a ‘’win-win’’ situation

(Salacuse, 1999). However, if the previous stage was not executed in a successful

manner, this stage might lead to renew a new round of face-to face negotiation and re-

evaluation of objectives and alternatives in mind (Ghuari & Usunier, 1996). Successful

post-negotiations include reaching a mutual agreement where all parties involved feel

like they walk away with a satisfactory outcome. In international negotiations, this stage

differs depending on cultural aspects and attitude toward agreements. Generally,

national cultures have different mindsets towards collaboration, which can cause

conflict or misunderstanding in the statement of agreement (Salacuse, 1999).

The post-negotiation stage also includes signed or commented agreements with

established procedures and post-mortems (Rubin & Brown, 1975). This includes

implementation of agreement, dealing with arising problems, and discussing

improvement opportunities which all lay the foundation for further developments

(Watershed, 2021). Building a long-lasting relationship often requires looking at this

stage as an opportunity for future negotiations and agreements (Ghauri, 2003). Here, the

negotiation can be evaluated, and it can be stated whether or not the negotiation

outcome aligned with the goals and vision that was set in the preparation phase.

27

2.5 Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework for this study was derived from the previous mentioned

theories and theoretical concepts about national culture, negotiation strategy, and the

process of international negotiation. To better elaborate on how the conceptual

framework is used, please see figure y. Starting with Covid-19 as an external factor

interrupting the process of international negotiations, it is displayed as the first aspect to

note in the framework. International negotiation thereafter serves as the main focus of

this study, thus it is centrally aligned and used as the anchor and grounding point.

Simultaneously, national culture and negotiation strategy are equally affecting the

international negotiation and are therefore placed parallelly to the main subject of focus

and used as supporting pillars to better understand the international negotiation and its

process. Lastly, the two aspects of the international negotiation process are divided

upon the three main phases pre-negotiation, face-to-face negotiation, and post-

negotiation, together including the five phases preparation, information-exchange,

bargaining, closing, and execution (Watershed, 2021).

Figure 3: Conceptual framework of the study

International Negotiations

National Culture• Power distance• Collectivism/individualism• Uncertainty avoidance• Feminity/masculinity• Short-term/long-term orientation• Restraint/indulgence

Principled Negotiation• People (ego state of people)• Interests (interest manner)• Options (alternatives)• Criteria (fair criteria)

COVID-19

Integrative Strategy

Pre-negotiation Face-to-face negotiation Post-negotiation

Preparation Bargaining ExecutionInformation-exchange Closing

28

3. METHODOLOGY

In this section, the scientific method of the study is outlined. The research philosophy is

presented, followed by the research strategy and approach. Thereafter, the research

design and method will be presented one by one. Finally, the section continues with the

survey layout and design, followed by an assessment of the quality research, ethical

considerations and method criticism as well as limitations of the research.

The structural approach of this study is inspired from the book Smått och Gott by

Mattsson och Örtenblad (2008) as well as by the book Business Research Methods by

Bell and Bryman (2017). To give an overview of the methods used in this study, a

summary will be presented in the table below.

Table 1: Summary of research methods

Methods

Research philosophy Positivistic

Research strategy Quantitative

Research approach Deductive with inductive elements

Research design Survey

3.1 Research philosophy

When conducting an academic research, there are typically two main perspectives and

philosophies to root in, which are the hermeneutic and the positivistic approach

(Andersson, 2014). According to Bryman & Bell (2011), a positivistic research

philosophy is often related to quantitative research and considered to be an

epistemological position that provides knowledge and a positive contribution to society.

Hermeneutics on the other hand, derives from the aim of interpretation and

understanding and is often related to qualitative research (Bryman and Bell (2011).

To align with the guidelines for academic researchers, the research philosophy of this

study will mainly pursue a positivistic approach. The study was conducted in a well-

structures and logical way with empirical data of international negotiations based on

29

previous research and theory, that could be tested through a quantitative analysis

(Bryman & Bell, 2011; Patel & Davidsson, 2011). Moreover, it aimed to give a positive

and valuable contribution to previous research within the topic area (Patel & Davidsson,

2011).

Positivism is also characterized by entailing five principles in academic research,

including for the phenomenalism principle of that all knowledge pursued should be of

such that it can be confirmed by the human senses (Bryman and bell, 2011). In this

study, the empirical data as well as previous research can be pursued through one or

more of our senses. Thus, this principle is met. Positivism has a principle of

deductivism where the hypothesis or research questions should be grounded in already

written theory and models (Bryman & Bell, 2017). Theories and principles concerning

the international negotiation process as well as cultural dimensions serves as the basis of

this study, therefore the principle of a deductive approach is fulfilled. The principle of

inductivism argue for knowledge being derived through collection of data, entailing an

inductive strategy whereas positivism entails that science must be of such that it is

objective (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Positivism also includes reductionism that entails the

possibility of simplifying data by reducing a phenomenon to constituents that can be

studied separately. In this study, the whole concept of how covid-19 has affected

international negotiations will be reduced by viewing Covid-19, national culture, and

international negotiation processes separately.

3.2 Research strategy and approach

Research strategies in academic researchers are divided into two main categories: the

qualitative and the quantitative study, or a combination of both. The quantitative

approach offers a rather objective approach, where the findings can be generalized and

applied to wider areas (Bryman & Bell, 2017). The quantitative research is often

derived from statistics and offers the opportunity to quantify large amounts of data.

Therefore, the study will be pursued through a quantitative approach as it aims to offer

valuable information that can be used both theoretically and practically by organizations

and managers operating internationally.

30

A qualitative approach would be preferred and used if the study would have focused to

gather and analyze non-numerical data to understand the concept of how Covid-19 has

affected the international negotiation process (Bryman & Bell, 2011). This could have

been done through gathering empirical data through interviews and rather analyze

words, statements, video, or audio instead of numerical data (Johannessen & Tufte,

2003). Since this study aims to analyze a large number of numerical data to describe a

phenomenon, a quantitative approach was used.

3.2.1 Deductive approach

From a research perspective, two main approaches are often used in the process of

conducting a scientific research, which are the inductive and deductive approach

(Bryman & Bell, 2017). This study will have a deductive process with inductive

tendencies, where the underlying theories of negotiation processes and national cultures

will be used to answer the research questions. However, the inductive tendencies are

derived from successively adapting new thoughts and theories from what is being

developed throughout the process of conducting and analyzing the empirical data.

Moreover, it is based on previous research that argues for the negotiation process being

an important part of the negotiation outcomes (Hopmann, 2002) and observations will

therefore serve as the base to identifying patterns in the art of international negotiations.

The relationship between theory and research will be such as the former is both

developed and derived out of the latter (Bryman & Bell, 2017). Moreover, the

theoretical and substantive research questions will be the main force of methodology,

where a wide variety of methods can be used to motivate the research agenda

(Hopmann, 2002).

The negotiation process in this study emphasizes the learning rather than the outcome or

conditions of negotiation situations, where the respondents will share their experiences

about the relationship between the pandemic and the overall negotiation process. The

study is further based on the assumption that international negotiation and its process

does make a significant difference in international negotiations (Hopmann, 2002),

underlying the belief of the research.

31

Using a qualitative strategy would have argued for the study having a purer inductive

approach based on interpretivism and constructionism. However, a qualitative strategy

and inductive approach would not fit the nature of this study, as it does not seek to

define the perception of international negotiators by using and analyzing non-numerical

to understand the concept of Covid-19 and the processes of international negotiations.

Instead, qualitative sub-questions will be used to give a deeper understanding to the

objective measures that will be used to answer the research questions (Bryman & Bell,

2011).

3.3 Research design

Research design often drives the scientific research and collection as well as the

analysis of its empirical data, where five prominent research designs serve as a basis for

the study. These consist of the experimental design, cross-sectional design, longitudinal

design, case study design and comparative design and are all applied depending on the

research purpose and type of data collection (Bryman & bell, 2011).

This study adopts a cross-sectional design as it aligns with the quantitative approach

and aim of this study. Cross-sectional design is characterized by a large amount of

empirical data being collected over a relatively short period of time and with limited

resources (Bryman & Bell, 2019), which will also be the case in this study. The data

collection will in this study be based on an online survey collected from multiple

respondents, where several variables will be analyzed to get a deeper and more

accurate understanding of the study. All questions will be mandatory and required to

be answer over one time for the questionnaire to be considered completed, and all

respondents are given the opportunity to give their opinion or ask additional questions

at the end of the survey. Beyond that, no follow-up questions or additional

investigations will be made (Bryman & Bell, 2011). As argued before, the research

method and design of a scientific study often aligns with one another (Bryman & Bell,

2019).

When examining the negotiation process, it can be both done directly (through

observations of the actual bargaining process) or indirectly (through examination of

32

what the negotiators plan and already have done). Since this study is written during a

global pandemic, the best way to observe the negotiation process is to examine it

indirectly through the conduction of reflections and thoughts from the actual

negotiators (Weingart et al, 2004). Additionally, this study entails a combination of

both an exploratory and an explanatory purpose, as it aims to investigate how Covid-19

has affected the international negotiation process when answering the two research

questions in focus. Fulfilling the purpose will therefore both examine how the

international process is being conducted as well as seeking to explain underlying

factors to why the process has been affected as such (Bryman & Bell, 2011).

3.4 Data collection

3.4.1 Literature review

Literature review is one of the critical aspects of academic research that help form a

fundamental and reliable basis of the study (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Therefore, using a

systematic approach when reviewing literature and complementing with the method of

chaining was considered necessary when conducting this study, as it minimizes the risk

for collecting irrelevant information that does not fully align with the purpose of the

study (Rienecker & Jørgensen, 2014; Forsberg & Wengström, 2016).

The study is based on primary data collected from a survey and secondary data from

articles and academic research, which aligns with its quantitative strategy and cross-

sectional design (Saunders et al., 2016). To ensure high credibility of the study, the

primary literature used has been retrieved from academic and scientific articles and

research published on Linköping University’s own database (Unisearch) as well Google

Scholar, Scopus, and ResearchGate. By systematically searching literature, keywords

such as international negotiation, negotiation process, Covid-19, national culture, and

negotiation strategy were used. Additionally, synonyms and related topics were

researched to ensure no content was missed (Rienecker & Jørgensen, 2014). In addition

to academic and scientific articles collected from the web, relevant books and course

material within the topic area of international business, national culture, and negotiation

were used to further widen the range of literature used.

33

To complement the systematically conducted literature review, chaining was

additionally used to broaden the aspects of the study and give a deeper understanding of

how previous research has discussed and approached similar topics beforehand

(Rienecker & Jørgensen, 2014). This method includes using articles and previously

conducted research to find relevant literature and material through their reference lists,

which then leads to additional literature and material that can be used. Thus, a chain of

relevant literature is created. Chaining is often considered relevant when using articles

studying similar subjects as the one being researched, which was considered in this

study (Rienecker & Jørgensen, 2014).

3.4.2 Survey method

To fulfill the purpose of investigating how Covid-19 has affected the international

negotiation process, an online survey (self-questionnaire) was the most applicable way

of collecting a large amount of empirical data during the limited period of time in this

study (Bryman & Bell, 2017). Using online surveys allowed the study to collect data

from international respondents from all over the world, which was an important factor

in the process of formatting an international research. According to Dahmström (2011),

there are generally five different types of survey ranging from postal surveys to online

surveys, where the latter was most applicable in this study since the respondents read

and complete the questionnaire themselves (Bryman & Bell, 2017). Additionally, the

research was conducted in the midst of a global pandemic where physical meeting

should be reduced, which adds to the argument for the choose of survey method

(Bryman & Bell, 2017; Malhotra, 2010). Despite what is said above, some

disadvantages of using surveys were still present, such as the difficulty for the

respondents to ask questions, misunderstandings, or losing interest. Precautions were

therefore taken such as providing an extra opportunity for the respondents to add

thoughts or recommendations in the end of the survey or sending an email to the creator

of this study (Bryman & Bell, 2017).

The alternative to online surveys would have been the process of conducting interviews

with several international negotiators worldwide (Bryman & Bell, 2017). However,

conducting structured interviews would have been utterly time-consuming, costly, and

ineffective compared to self-completion questionnaires. Thus, an online survey was

34

used as main method, being both cheaper and quicker to administer (Bryman & Bell,

2017). The total completion time was estimated to around 5-10 minutes per respondent,

which could be consider a reasonable for the respondent not losing interests, bailing out

or perceiving the survey as too bulky or boring (Dahmström, 2011).

3.4.3 Survey layout

The online survey included a total of 34 questions categorized in four parts, where the

majority of questions were mandatory to eliminate the risk for getting unreliable

answers (Dahmström, 2011). After introducing the purpose and other formalities of the

study, the first part of the survey included general questions to gather demographic

information that later could be translated into statistics. These questions covered

information about the respondent’s country and continent of residence, age, gender, and

information about primary work title, and industry of work. The second part, however,

covered both open questions as well as closed questions about number of countries the

participants had negotiated with, and how they experienced that the number of

negotiations had changed. Additionally, the participants were asked to briefly describe

their last international negotiation during Covid-19 to get an overview of the overall

negotiations. According to Bryman & Bell (2011), closed questions provide an easier

access and comparability of answers compared to open questions and was therefore the

main type asked throughout the study. The closed questions varied from multiple choice

question to questions being answered with ‘’yes’’ or ‘’no’’ as well as on a scale from 1-

7 (Bryman & Bell, 2017).

The third part of the survey consisted of closed questions using a Likert-scale with 7

points. This gave the respondent the chance to answer according to a grading system

from 1, representing ‘’not at all/strongly disagree’’ to 7, representing ‘’strongly

agree/completely’’. The underlying reason for using an Lickert-scale lay in its

simplicity and feasibility, as well as the convertibility of its grading system.

Additionally, its well-known advantages such as high reliability and credibility in

previous research (Edmondson, 2005; Neuman, 2002). This arrangement was done to

first let the participants grade the significance of Covid-19’s effect on the international

negotiation process and then, to devise their own thoughts and elaborations on the

subjects. Finally, the fourth part of the questionnaire consisted of closed questions

35

related to principled negotiation (Fisher, Ury & Patton, 1981) covering integrative and

distributive aspects of international business negotiations.

3.4.4 Survey instrument

To collect the questionnaire online, the survey instrument used in this study was Google

forms as it is a well-known and secure platform to work through (Persson, 2016).

Moreover, Google forms provides a simple and effective framework that is easy to

navigate and use. As the study aimed to easily collect an online survey in a structured,

uncomplicated and inexpensive way, Google forms was simply the best way to go as it

both provides pre-made survey functions and is completely free from fees (Persson,

2016). Other survey instruments such as SurveyMonkey was also considered but fell

away as the primary alternative as it did not provide an as large variety of cost-free tools

as Google forms (Persson, 2016). Additionally, Google forms also provided an

advantage with the possibility to easily transfer the collected information without

having to export it survey by survey, which was seen as a risk-minimizing and secure

way to handle the collected data (Bryman & Bell, 2011).

3.4.5 Selection and sampling

The study intends to be limited to negotiators operating in an international context,

which can be defined as someone who has taken part in any negotiation conducted with

one or more counterparts from another country or continent (Dupont & Faure, 1991). To

ensure this being the case, specific instructions and questions were asked to determine

whether or not the respondents were qualified. This because of the previously

mentioned reasons of the global pandemic as well as the lack of theory discussing and

addressing international negotiations during a global crisis such as Covid-19

(Ballesteros & Gatignon, 2019). Taking factors such as regional negotiators out of the

conclusion opens for a more in-depth focus on the international area and negotiations

cross-borders. Such a study would on the other hand be interesting to conduct in the

future, which opens up possibilities for further research.

According to Dahmström (2011), the sampling method should be of such that best

represents the population which the study examines, which made the selection of

online channel quite tricky. After examining the different alternatives of

36

SurveyMonkey and other tools, the survey was sent through Amazon’s Mechanical

Turk (MTurk) as it worked as a time-efficient international portal to respondents from

countries worldwide, including a diverse pool of participants (Aguinis et al., 2020).

Additionally, the survey was sent out and published on social media such as LinkedIn

and Facebook, as well as sent out through the network of personal contacts. Even the

fact of the survey being handed out personally, it can still be argued that the sample of

international negotiators was still randomly chosen, as the major of answers were

collected from MTurk and respondents from several continents (Bryman & bell, 2017).

To answer the question about how Covid-19 has affected the international negotiation

process, international negotiators were selected as the main sample to study as it best

aligned with the purpose of the study (Bryman & Bell, 2017; Dahmström, 2011). An

international negotiator could then be defined as someone taking part in one or more

international negotiations during the pandemic (Dupont & Faure, 1991).

Since the required scope aimed to be of 300 respondents, and no specific tools were

found to limit the study of negotiators to a specific type of negotiation or industry using

online portals, the decision was made to focus on all types of negotiations possible, as

it allowed for a greater variety and scale of answers. The ideal would have been to

receive equally as many answers from international negotiators across all continents,

which realistically was not an option considering the current pandemic and limited

resources as well as targeted websites and research tools. However, a request was

stated in the introduction of the survey to limit the participants to those who had

participated in any type of international negotiation during the time period of the

pandemic, which according to (Malhotra, 2010) aligns with the strategy of quota

sampling.

The final number of collected answers consisted of 316 survey respondents from a total

of five continents, representing Africa, Asia, Europe, North America and South

America. This was 116 respondents over the main goals, which enhanced the quality

and reliability of the study further, as the number of respondents better represented the

overall population of international negotiators compared to a smaller number of

respondents would have (Bryman & Bell, 2017). Moreover, the sample size consisted

of both men and women from a variety of industries and countries.

37

3.4.6 Variables

To answer the research purpose of how Covid-19 has affected the international

negotiation process, one variable from each of the five steps of the international

negotiation process were chosen, where each chosen variable was based on theories and

previous research within the field of international negotiations (Deresky, 2006; Ghauri,

2003; Cullen & Paraboteeh, 2008; Rubin & Brown, 1975). These five variables also

represented the major phases of an international negotiation and were chosen

accordingly. To get a better overview of the thought and principle behind the five

process variables, see table 2 below. Moreover, one variable was chosen to represent the

respondents view upon how Covid-19 had affected the overall process of international

negotiations, which were chosen to be the dependent variable. This resulted in a total of

six variables chosen to determine both the connection between the overall change in

negotiation process and the change in each of the five steps of the international

negotiation. The definition of these variables was then connected to the survey

questions underlying the questionnaire where the respondents as previously mentioned,

were asked to answer on questions and statements scaling from the value of 1 to 7,

which enabled the use of an uncomplicated statistical analysis (Bryman & Bell, 2017).

The dependent variable were labeled process and based on the survey question of to

what extent the respondent experienced Covid-19 had affected the process of

international negotiation. The independent variables on the other hand, where chosen

according to which of the different variables from each stage were thought and tested to

be the most statistically reliable, resulting in the five independent variables preparation,

conflicts, value, comprehensiveness, and implementation.

38

Table 2: Selected independent variables of use – the international negotiation process.

3 PHASES 5 STAGES VARIABLE VARIABLE DEFINITION

PRE-NEGOTIATION

Preparation Preparation To what extent do you feel that Covid-19 has changed the way you prepare for an international negotiation?

Information exchange

Conflicts To what extent do you experience that the number of conflicts has changed during Covid-19?

FACE-TO-FACE NEGOTIATION

Bargaining Value To what extent do you feel that Covid-10 has affected how you create and distribute value during an international negotiation?

Conclusion Comprehensiveness During Covid-19, international negotiations has affected the comprehensiveness of the negotiation outcome?

POST-NEGOTIATION

Execution Implementation To what extent do you feel Covid-19 has affected the implementation of the agreement?

39

3.5 Data analysis

Based on the data collected from the analysis, Office Excel has been the preliminary

software in the process of analysis as it is a reliable and advanced software that can be

used for data analysis (Divisi et al, 2017). To interpret and analyze the collected data,

both statistical and a more general analysis was used to get an objective and systematic

quantitative analysis of the empirical data (Bryman & Bell, 2011). To answer the

research question regarding if there is any connection between the process variables and

a change in the overall negotiation process, multiple linear regression was used to

determine the relationship between the dependent variable process and the independent

variables. To answer the second question of if there is any connection between the

change in international negotiation process among the continents, a one-way ANOVA

was performed (Bryman & Bell, 2011).

When conducting quantitative research, the analysis can be done in different ways.

According to Bryman & Bell (2011), one thing all quantitative research should have in

common is to define and determine what independent and independent variables will be

measured from the beginning. Since as international negotiations are of a greater

complexity compared to intercultural ones, various factors must be analyzed. Therefore,

both theoretical and practical viewpoints must be discussed (Dupont, 2002).

Generally, there are some disadvantages and advantages of using quantitative methods

when analyzing the negotiation process. Quantitative data are often expensive and time-

consuming to obtain when using methods such as coding schemes (Hopmann, 2002).

Moreover, it can be argued that the negotiation process often is interfered with outside

the negotiation table, and often closely affected by outer circumstances such as personal

interactions in informal settings. Therefore, measuring the negotiation process through a

quantitative analysis can be challenging and thus has previous research and analysis on

of the subject often been qualitative in nature (Hopmann, 2002). However, using

quantitative analysis offers great objectivity and the opportunity to collect great

amounts of data during a short period of time (Bryman & Bell, 2011; Hopmann, 2002).

Considering the limited time period of this study and aim to collect data from over 300

participants, a qualitative approach to the analysis of the international negotiation

process would simply have been too time-consuming and surrealistic considered the fact

that I would have had to interview and then transcribe content from such many

40

respondents. Therefore, of practical reasons mainly, the analysis of this study is done

through dividing the analysis into two parts.

3.5.1 Coding procedure

Theories about international negotiation as well as previously used coding schemes

were used to drive the theoretical derivation, whereas the process of collecting the

survey was driven purely by data (e.g., Lewicki et al, 1985; Pruitt 1981; Pruitt &

Carnevale 1993; Walton & McKersie 1965). Moreover, since this study aims to focus

on the negotiators and the negotiation process, the data will aggregate over individuals

and focus on the group of people seen as the international negotiators. Focusing on a

group of negotiators enables us to provide a global description of how Covid-19 has

affected the international negotiation process. Since the level of empirical theory used

global behavior of international negotiators is of interest, the coding categories will be

detailed and then aggregated into broader and general categories during the analysis

(Weingart et al, 2004).

The continents Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, North America, and Australia

were recoded to the numerical scales, where Asia was set to number 1, Europe to

Number 2, South America to number 3, and North America to number 4. Because of the

low sample size of respondents from Africa (9) and Australia (2), they were both

excluded in the comparative analysis. Since a question was asked to specify which

country each individual residence in, it was discovered that the respondents who

answered Australia as their primary continent of residence actually lived in India.

Therefore, the respondents from Australia were reallocated to the sample of respondents

from Asia (Bryman & Bell, 2011).

3.5.2 Descriptive statistics

In this study, descriptive statistics have been used to describe the collected data from the

316 respondents. This has been done with the help of pie charts, diagrams, and tables

with information about means, and distribution among genders.

41

3.5.3 Analytical statistics

To analyze the data collected from the 316 respondents across the world, different types

of data analysis has been implemented to answer the purpose of the study of how

Covid-19 has affected the international negotiation process. Since several research

questions were asked, the type of analysis has been adjusted to that specific question

(Bryman & Bell, 2011). For example, looking at a relationship between variables

required a multiple linear regression and correlation analysis. On the other hand,

comparing different continents with one another required another type of analysis such

as a One-way ANOVA.

To analyze the collected empirical data, multiple regression was used to examine how

Covid-19 has affected the international negotiation process. The dependent variable

consisted of process and the independent variables of preparation, conflicts, value,

comprehensiveness, and implementation. Each variable represented one of five phases

used to determine the negotiation process (Deresky, 2006).

When performing multiple linear regression, it is important to examine whether or not

the independent variables are correlating with one another or not. This was done to

control if any multicollinearity existed between the variables and thereby determine if

the effect of each variable could be separated (Saunders, 2016). The strengths of the

linear relationship and closeness of correlation is determined by a value of -1 to 1,

where both equals a perfect relationship between the variables. A negative number

represents a negative correlation between the variables where an increase in one of the

variables results in a decrease its opposite. On the other hand, a positive number

represents a positive relationship between the variables. The closer the correlation is to

0, the weaker the relationship between the variables (Field, 2015; Weinberg &

Abramowitz, 2015).

42

3.6 Research quality

To ensure the highest research quality as possible, three main criteria has been used:

Reliability, replicability, and validity (Bryman & Bell, 2017), which will all be

discussed in the upcoming section of the study.

3.6.1 Reliability

In the evaluation of this study, reliability was used as the first criteria for quality

assurance. According to Bryman and Bell (2017), the criterion of reliability is used to

examine how well the results from the conducted study would align with a similar study

conducted in the near future. This is done to measure how consistent a measure of

concept is, which was fulfilled throughout the process of conducting the study by using

carefully selected variables representing each stage of the international negotiation

process as well as a variable for the overall negotiation process, effectiveness, and

digitalization. Moreover, to ensure that the process variables were connected to the

current pandemic, each question were asked within the perspective of Covid-19. An

example of this could be a question such as ‘’To what extent do you feel Covid-19 has

changed the way you prepare for an international negotiation?’’ or a statement such as

‘’During Covid-19, International negotiations has affected the comprehensiveness of

the negotiation outcome’’.

3.6.2 Replicability

Elaborating on what is previously mentioned, replicability is the second criteria used to

secure top quality of the study. For this criterion to be fulfilled, Bryman and Bell (2017)

argue that the study should be reported as such so that future researcher could replicate

the study and test the result if wanted. For this to be possible, information about what

type of variables, research questions, and methods used should be presented and easily

collected. In this study, the criterion of replicability was met by clearly stating what

method and variables were used throughout the process of conducting the research,

which is found earlier in this chapter. Additionally, all survey questions and a complete

table of all variables discussed throughout the study is attached in Appendix 1 and 2,

which makes them easy to access and replicate (Bryman & Bell, 2017). Researchers

could therefore use the material for conducting future research in similar pandemics or

use it as dictionary in related topics. Moreover, it could also be thought that there is an

43

interest for looking at how the pandemic affected the international negotiation process

post the pandemic, which would make the research replicable. However, it should be

indicated that the research questions in this study were asked to negotiators

experiencing the effects of the current pandemic in real time, and that the results might

differ if the same questions were asked post-pandemic, as the negotiators perception of

what was experienced and felt might have changed.

3.6.3 Validity

The last criterion used to ensure the quality of this study is validity. According to

Bryman and Bell (2017), validity can be divided into four types that are applicable to

this study: internal validity, concept validity, external validity, and ecological validity.

Overall, validity aims to question whether or not the study is correctly conducted and

how accurate the variables used in the study actually are.

To fulfill the first aspect of internal validity, causal relationships between one or more

of the variables used were questioned to understand the connection between the

variables (Bryman & Bell, 2017). The indicators that made up the scale of the

questionnaire were consistent, consisting of a 1-7 scale from ‘’not fully/Strongly

disagree’’ to ‘’Completely/Strongly agree’’. Since the sample size of this study is

around 200 participants, inter-observer consistency requires subject judgement where

the participants have been involved in activities such as recordings or observations of

the empirical data. In this study no such thing was actual, making it quite irrelevant to

apply. However, what could have arisen was inconsistent answers in the questionnaire.

This was avoided by making all questions mandatory.

Continuing, concept validity is the second aspect of validity used in this study. Here,

questions whether or not the concepts used throughout the study are relevant and easily

understood arose (Bryman & Bell, 2017). In this study, concepts such as negotiation

and national culture are easily grasped. However, the concept of process is the primary

in international negotiations is both obscurer and the primary focus in the study.

Therefore, the decision was made to divide the process in three main blocks according

to theory about the negotiation process. Thereafter, the process was divided into five

sub-categories to make the use of variables more correct. Moreover, the research

44

questions were created and adapted to each variable to ensure content validity and that

the survey measured what it intended to measure (Bryman & Bell, 2017).

Additionally, the external validity of the study was examined. According to Bryman and

Bell (2017), external validity looks at the generalizability of the study, which in this

research is met by generalizing how pandemics affect the international negotiation

process. To ensure that the collected empirical data was of high quality, the respondents

were kindly asked to only take part in the study if they had taken part of any

international negotiation during the time period of the pandemic only, which improved

the external validity of the study as it was limited to negotiators. The study therefore

ascertained the relevance of the respondents by presenting well defined criteria in the

introduction of the study. Thus, the study is easier to generalize among negotiators or

businesses participating in any kind of international negotiation.

3.7 Ethical considerations

Ethics in business research is a fundamental part of conducting an academic study. To

fulfill the ethical considerations and secure (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Ethical issues can

and should never be ignored since they are closely correlated with the integrity of the

research study. According to Vetenskapsrådet (2017) and Bryman and Bell (2017),

there are some rules for good research practice when taking ethical questions into

consideration. These are the information-, consent-, utilization-, and confidentiality

requirements, which all should be fulfilled to reach the ethical requirements of an

academic research. Moreover, the study aligned with three recommendations regarding

how to make a report. An outline was first drawn of the processing operations before

the data was processed. Second, the controller of the data has been limited to the

researcher and her own usage of the collected data and lastly, the data subjects

consisting of the fellow respondents were closely defined and precautions were made to

respect their individual rights and relation to the data (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Data

management in this study was conducted with a strong focus at data security. Such as

the questionnaire being protected from unauthorized access or usage (Bryman & Bell,

2011).

45

To fulfill the information requirement, the respondents were informed about the

purpose and formalities before starting the process of participating in the survey

(Bryman & Bell, 2017). This was done in the beginning of the survey by presenting the

aim and reason for the stud, which was communicated as investigating how Covid-19

had affected the international negotiation process. Moreover, the consent requirement

as well as the requirement of utilization were fulfilled by informing the respondent

about that the participating in the research was voluntarily and that they had full right to

at any time access, view, and withdraw their answers from the survey result during the

research period (Bryman & Bell, 2017). Informed consent was given in the beginning of

the survey as means to make sure detailed understanding of what the participant’s

involvement were likely to entail. Furthermore, the researchers assume no respondents

participate if the questionnaire somewhat violates the company’s code of conduct. By

filling out the report they also agreed to data being processed in line with the privacy

policy of Linköping University (Bryman & Bell, 2017). Lack of informed consent is

one of the most common issues debated in academic research and is therefore extra

important to consider when conducting a quantitative study as such (Bryman & Bell,

2011). All participants were thereby given proper information to make informed

decisions throughout the survey. However, all questions in the questionnaire were

obligatory as to the reason for the study requiring fully completed answers. On the other

hand, participants were allowed to withdraw their participation any time needed.

Additionally, the respondents were informed about how the study would be used and

that data would be securely stored until the end of the research period, to then be

accordingly deleted. However, since the survey exceeded answers from more than 200

participants, the sample size could have been considered too large to identify individual

participants (Bryman & Bell, 2011). In defiance of this, all participants were as

previously mentioned, still informed about how the collected data would be protected.

Worth mentioning is also that despite the majority of questions being obligatory, the

respondents were allowed to exit the survey at any time and thereby their results would

not be included in the final statistics. However, intellectual property rights in the form

of copyright were considered such as not being of main focus. The reason for this relied

simply on the fact that no real transcription was made since no interviews were

conducted. However, the supplementary qualitative questions that were in the

questionnaire served as a base for deepening the data analysis to a greater extent

46

(Bryman & Bell, 2011). All respondents were over the age of 18 years old, and

reciprocity and trust were ethnically considered in the communication with all contacts

throughout the study. The idea of the research being beneficial for both the participants

as well as the researcher was considered as such of the study being published as a

report, making it available for both the participants as well as the public (Bryman &

Bell, 2011).

The research fulfilled the confidentially requirement by providing information about

ethical considerations and data protection (Bryman & Bell, 2017). The respondents

were thereby informed about how the study would protect their privacy and that the

collected data would not be shared or sold to any third parties. No names or personal

details were collected to ensure anonymity Moreover, an email address was provided if

any questions or ambiguities arose.

47

4. Results & Analysis This chapter analyzes the collected empirical data to get an overview of how Covid-19

has affected the international negotiation process. First, demographic statistics will be

presented, followed by a statistical outcome of the multiple regression analysis as well

as a one-way ANOVA for the four continents Asia, Europe, North America, and South

America.

4.1 Demographic statistics

The collected data will be presented with demographic statistics to give a better

overview of the respondents in the study. First, the age and place of residence will be

displayed (see table 4), followed by other relevant data such as continent of residence,

gender, and working roles. Thereafter, industry and numbers of negotiations will be

presented, and follow with a correlation analysis, multiple regression, and One-way

ANOVA.

4.1.1 Initial data

The following information was conducted through surveys from a wide variety of

respondents during the month of May 2021, with a total of 316 respondents from all

over the world. Age and place of residence varied considerably, where the majority of

respondents (51,3%) were in the age range of 25-34 years. Place of residence varied

remarkably between the five continents Asia, Europe, South America and North

America. The results showed a majority of the 316 respondents living in either North

America (34,5%) or Asia (34,8%). Moreover, the rest lived in either Europe (9,2%),

South America (18,7%) or Africa (2,8%).

Since such a wide variety of respondents participated in this study, both age and place

of residence will be displayed to give a better overview of the participants. This aligns

with the fact that international negotiations have been conducted including many

different cultures and nationalities (Dupont & Faure, 1991), which can be seen by the

variety of respondents from five continents. However, a majority of respondents being

from North America and Asia makes the collected sample quite uneven in its allocation

between respondents and continents, which could be described by MTurk being mostly

48

used across those continents (Aguinis et al., 2020). Moreover, a majority of the

respondents were males (65,2%) and a minority woman (33,9%), which could be

described to be because of several reasons. The 110 respondents from Asia lived in

countries such as India, Hong Kong, Vietnam, and Philippines, where three of four

countries are high on the masculinity scale of dimensional culture (Hofstede, 2021). In

North America however, respondents lived in states such as Texas, California, and New

York, as well as in the country of Canada, where both US and Canada have masculinity

score over 50 (Hofstede, 2021). This could explain the reason for a majority of the

respondents being men, as men in masculine countries are often expected to work hard

and engage in more work-related tasks compared to women (Hofstede, 1980).

Moreover, 0,3% of the respondents identified as non-binary and 0,6% preferred not to

say.

Table 3: List of participants. Continent + sample size + countries/states.

Continent Sample size Countries/States

Africa 9 Egypt, Tunisia

Asia 110 India, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Philippines

Europe 29 Sweden, Norway, Italy, Germany, Spain,

Bulgaria, England, Ireland, France, Bulgaria

North America 109 Texas, California, Oklahoma, Canada,

Wisconsin, Nevada, New York

South America 59 Brazil, Argentina

Table 4: Age and place of place of residence in percentage.

Age Percentage Continent of residence Percentage

18-24 9,2% Afrika 2,8%

25-34 51,3% Asia 34,8%

35-44 26,3% Europe 9,2%

45-54 10,1% North America 34,5%

55-64 2,2% South America 18,7%

65+ 0,9%

49

Figure 4: Gender

The unequal data of men (65,2%) versus females (33,9%) might not have affected the

end results of the study but can generally play a role in how the negotiators negotiate

(Danciu, 2010; Zhang & Zhou, 2008). Moreover, it can be thought that if a majority is

either men or women, how they perceive the overall negotiation can differ as to how

high or low the country they negotiate from score in the cultural dimension of

Masculinity (Hofstede, 1980). If the country from which the respondents answer is

rather more masculine than feminine in its cultural dimensions, the negative emotional

consequences of Covid-19 might not seem to affect the negotiators as much as in

feminine countries, as the majority of the respondents in this study were men (Danciu,

2010; Zhang & Zhou, 2008). This can as previously mentioned be worth taking into

consideration, as many of the countries in the continents representing this study scored

over 50 on the masculinity scale of cultural dimensions, such as Japan, China, Hong-

Kong, and Philippines (Hofstede, 2021).

4.1.2 Industry & Roles

After collecting the empirical data, a few main industries were displayed, where the

majority of the participants worked within IT (29,1%). Thereafter, the split was widely

spread between different industries, resulting in the category of ‘’Other’’ representing

the second largest group with a total of 25% of the total respondents, followed by a

10,8% working within Manufacturing and Construction including production and

processing procedures. 7,3% worked within the industry of Banking and Finance, 5,7%

65,2%

33,9%

0,3%

0,6%

GENDERMale Female Non-Binary Prefer no to say

50

within Health, 5% within Education, 4,4% within Communication and sales, and the

remaining percentages within Management, Marketing, Food and beverages, Fashion

and garment, and Media and Arts (Moor & Weigand, 2004). This could in fact play an

important role in how the participants experienced Covid-19’s effect on the

international negotiation process, as different industries have been affected differently

by the virus (Wang, 2020).

Analyzing the collected data, the results showed a majority of the respondents working

as managers (37%). Thereafter, answers only appearing once were categorized as

‘’Other’’ resulted in being the second largest group (35,4%), followed by freelancers

and business owners (4,8%), and Analysts, Engineers, and Teachers (3,8%). Finally, the

remining respondents were represented by 2,6% Developers, 2,2% Leaders, 2%

Salesmen and the rest of Consultants, Purchasers, and Assistants (Moor & Weigand,

2004).

Analyzing the collected data and looking at the demographics and general information

provided by the respondents participating in this study, the results show that the

majority had worked in that specific role between 1-5 years, followed by 6-10 years, 11-

15 years and then lastly over 15 years and a minority of the answers could be

categorized into a period of 1-11 months in total, which implies a wide variety of

knowledge and experience (Moor & Weigand, 2004). To visualize this further, the

results will be presented below.

51

Table 5: Roles

Role Percentage

Manager 37%

Consultant 1%

Leader 2,2%

Entrepreneur 4,8%

Analyst 3,8%

Purchaser 1%

Salesman 2%

Teacher 3,8%

Engineer 3,8%

Assistant 1,3%

Developer 2,9%

Other 35,4%

Figure 5: Years in current role

4.1.3 Negotiations: number and type

To get a better overview of what type of negotiations the respondents participated in

during the pandemic, they were asked to briefly describe their last international

negotiation during Covid-19. The majority of the respondent described the negotiation

to be about price or new contracts, implying a rather distributive negotiation (Barry &

Friedman, 1998). However, negotiation about contract time, projects, politics, corona-

rules (instituting physical distancing), production of personal protective equipment

(PPE), issues and actions, deadlines, work procedures, change management, conflict

resolution, safety precautions, products, partnership, guidelines, export, and business

development were also presented. This aligns with international negotiations consisting

of counterparts dealing with different types of negotiations (Moor & Weigand, 2004)

and the overall negotiations being integrative with a win-win concept in mind (Fisher,

Ury & Patton, 1981).

Analyzing the collected data, it can be stated the majority of respondents represent

negotiations between over 100 countries during the current pandemic, which aligns with

0

50

100

150

1-11months

1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years >15 years

Years in current role

52

international negotiations consisting of one or more counterparts from different

nationalities and cultures (Dupont & Faure, 1991). However, the second most common

answer on the number of participated negotiations during the pandemic was

‘’unknown’’, which indicates some level of unclarity among the respondents and could

possibly be because of timeframe of the pandemic. Since its outbreak in December 2019

(WHO, 2020), the pandemic has affected millions and lives and therefore, remembering

the exact number of conducted negotiations can be a hard task to handle. However, a

majority of respondents could answer that they participated in a wide range of

negotiations between multiple continents (Dupont & Faure, 1991), including a severe

amount of cross-cultural communication (Zuang & Zhou, 2008; Hall, 1975). The

international negotiations were spread across all continents around the world and some

of the most frequently occurring countries were Scandinavian countries such as Sweden

and Norway, as well as Australia, US, UK, India, and European countries such as

Germany, Italy, and France. Moreover, Brazil, Canada, Japan, China, Russia, and

Singapore. Just to name a few. To give a better overview of the allocation of numbers of

participated negotiations between the respondents occurred during the pandemic, see the

figure below.

Figure 6: Number of negotiations.

21%

66%

7%6%

NUMBER OF NEGOTIATIONS

Unknown 1-10 countries 11-100 coutries >100

53

4.2 The international negotiation process

As previously mentioned, the pandemic forced a majority of the workforce worldwide

to work remotely (Wang, 2020). To gain a better overview of how the respondent

experienced this particular digitalization as a part of how Covid-19 has affected the

international negotiation process, a statement that was presented in the survey where the

respondents could answer from ‘’strongly agree’’ to ‘’strongly disagree’’ on whether or

not Covid-19 has affected international negotiations by making communication more

digitalized. On a scale from 1-7 the majority respondents argued that both digitalization

and effectiveness had changed in the international negotiation process due to Covid-19.

Reviewing the figure below, it can be stated that a total of 59% of the respondents

experienced the international negotiations to be more effective during the pandemic

compared to before, whereas 25% argued the effectiveness as unchanged and 16% as

more ineffective. This indicates that Covid-19 has affected the international negotiation

process in several ways, both concerning digitalization and effectiveness. This aligns

with digitalization infiltrating on the international negotiation process (Misra, 2014),

making the overall negotiation more effective because of time saved from traveling and

transitioning between offices.

Figure 7: Digitalization/Effectiveness

To test the model of analysis on the collected data of 316 respondents, multiple linear

regression was used on the dependent variable process and the five independent

variables preparation, conflicts, value, comprehensiveness and implementation. The

7

6

10

47

98

106

42

6

4

8

42

70

106

80

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neutral

Somewhat agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Change in effectiveness/digitalization

Digitalization Effectiveness

54

significance level used was of 𝛼 = 0,05 and the results stated that there was a

statistically significant connection between the dependent variable and four of the

independent variables. Before analyzing the data through a multiple linear regression,

the correlations and directionality of the data was analyzed through a correlation

analysis, which will be presented in the upcoming sections. However, the correlation

indicated a positive relationship between the dependent variable and each of the

independent variables, which stated a great data fit for a multiple linear regression

analysis.

As shown in the table above, all variables indicate that Covid-19 has affected the

international negotiation process to a quite high extent. To get a better understanding of

which variables had the strongest linear relationship and correlation, it could be of

interest to analyze the independent variables and see where the strongest correlation

occurred, which will be assessed in the sections below.

Table 6: Correlation matrix: Process + Prep. + Conflicts + Value + Comp. + Imp.

Process Prep. Conflicts Value Comp. Imp.

Process 1

Preparation 0,634 1

Conflicts 0,576 0,550 1

Value 0,559 0,517 0,608 1

Comprehensiveness 0,582 0,496 0,555 0,590 1

Implementation 0,540 0,564 0,550 0,592 0,523 1

Prep.= Preparation, Comp = Comprehensiveness, Imp = Implementation,

All connections between the dependent variable and the independent variables

preparation, conflicts, value, comprehensiveness, and implementation were positive,

which is indicated by the positive coefficients (Beta-values) in table 7. Therefore, an

increase in any of the independent variables increase the mean of the dependent variable

process. This indicates that a change anywhere in the five stages of the international

negotiation process instantly changes the overall negotiation process as a result, which

aligns with the negotiation process being interlinked to its three phases of pre-

negotiation, face-to-face negotiation, and post-negotiation (Watershed, 2021, Ghauri,

2003). Moreover, it can be stated that the connection between the dependent variable

55

and preparation were strongly significant and positively connected, as well as for the

connection between the dependent variable and the independent variable of conflicts,

which had a P-value < 0,05. Moreover, the connection between the dependent variable

and the independent variable value as well as comprehensiveness showed a P-value of

<0,05 which once again states the strong connection between the different stages of

international negotiation and the overall negotiation process. The explanatory variable R

square (R2) was 0.5, which states that 53,7%, of the total variance in the dependent

variable could be explained by the independent variables. Thus, 53,7% of the data fit the

regression model. To give a better overview of the results, an output summary of the

multiple regression analysis will be displayed in the table below.

Table 7: Output summary of the multiple regression analysis. * Significance = 0.05

Coefficients Standard Error

t Stat P-value

Intercept 0,7 0,2 2,9 <0,05

Preparation 0,3 0,0 6,5 <0,01

Conflicts 0,2 0,1 2,9 <0,05

Value 0,1 0,1 2,0 <0,05

Comprehensiveness 0,2 0,1 4,2 <0,05

Implementation 0,1 0,1 1,6 .ns.

4.2.1 Pre-negotiation

Preparation

After analyzing the empirical data, it can be stated that a majority of the respondents

(29,8%) experienced that Covid-19 had changed the way they prepared for an

international negotiation, compared to 3,2% that did not experience this change at all.

This could in fact depend on many different factors, such as what type of negotiation

they are participating in as well as what cultural dimensions exists in between the

different counterparts encountering in the negotiation process (Hofstede, 2011).

Moreover, it aligns with the fact of preparation being interconnected with the whole

international negotiation process and thus it becomes an important part of the overall

success of the negotiation (Watershed, 2021; Ghauri, 2006). Being able to prepare

56

properly for an international negotiation is vital, and Covid-19 having contributed to

accelerated digitalization makes the result highly relevant (Wang, 2020; Zhuang &

Zhou, 2008). However, a majority of negotiators experiencing a change in how they

prepare for an international negotiation is mainly connected to the fact that physical

negotiations have reduced and number of in-house meetings, which is a major part

before the actual face-to-face negotiation starts (Ghauri, 2003).

Information exchange and validation

Moreover, a majority of respondents also experienced that the number of conflicts

during the process of an international negotiation changed, which was measured using

the variable conflicts. Looking at both the regression model as well as analyzing the

empirical data separately, it can clearly be stated that the changed number of conflicts in

the information exchange and validation stage of the international negotiation process is

connected to the overall change in the international negotiation process due to Covid-

19. Negotiating internationally requires a deep understanding of differences and

similarities in cultures, where the stage of information exchange and validation plays

and important role in building trust and confidence (Hofstede, 2011; Danciu, 2010;

Minkov, 2007, Hall, 1959). Moreover, since conflicts and conflict resolution are a

natural part of the international negotiation process (Wall & Callister, 1995), the results

align with previous research and therefore highlights the importance of having a flexible

approach to the overall negotiation process and its involving counterparts (Ghauri,

2003). Analyzing the collected data from the survey report, it can clearly be stated that

the majority of respondents experienced the number of conflicts to increase, which can

be of several reasons. International negotiators being forced to new circumstances can

both create a resistance for change and increase the complexity of the overall

negotiation. Understanding cultures and how Covid-19 has been handled differently

across cultures and continents play an important role in reaching mutual agreement

(Andersson & Mets, 2020; Wang, 2020; Minkov, 2007). However, Comparing the

independent variable preparation with other independent variables, it can be stated that

the strongest linear relationship existed between the independent variable of preparation

and implementation (0.56), which indicates a moderate strength between the two

variables. Additionally, analyzing the independent variable conflict, the strongest linear

relationship is between conflict and value (0.61), which indicates a strong correlation

between the two independent variables, which aligns with analyzing the independent

57

variable of value separately. Knowing that informal meetings are a big part in building

trust and developing a strong and healthy business relationships (Ghauri, 2003) makes it

reasonable that the decrease in physical meeting have led to an increase in conflicts.

Increased conflicts can be related to negotiators failing to create mutual value for the

other counterpart, which could be argued to be because of the lack of understanding in

how the pandemic has affected the other half (Thompson et al, 2014).

Figure 8: Change in Nr. of conflicts

4.2.2 Face-to-face negotiation

Bargaining

As previously mentioned, the variable value was used to determine the bargaining stage

of the process, where a majority of the respondents answered that Covid-19 has affected

how they created and distributed value during international negotiations to an extent of

5 out of the scale from 1-7, which was measured through the variable value. Analyzing

table 8, this can be stated slightly lower compared to the other variables, where 26,3%

experienced the change as even greater. The results indicates that there is a connection

between the stage of bargaining and an overall change in the international negotiation

process due to Covid-19, which aligns with the concept of the whole international

negotiation process being interconnected (Ghauri, 2006; Watkins, 2002). Covid-19

having changed the whole working environment into being more digitalized can be

17%

30%

53%

NR. OF CONFLICTSLess conflicts Unchanged More conflicts

58

thought to have had a huge impact on how value is created and distributed during the

negotiation process, which is confirmed by the results of the study (Wang, 2020;

Watershed, 2021). Communication being more online forces the international

negotiators to adapt to new circumstances, where differences in cultures such as high-

context or low-context cultures can be argued to have played an important part of the

change in the bargaining process (Keegan et al, 1996; Hofstede, 2011; Hall, 1975).

Conclusion/Closing

After analyzing the collected empirical data, it can be stated that 32,9% of the

respondents agreed to the fact that during Covid-19, international negotiations had

affected the comprehensiveness of the negotiation outcome, which translates to Covid-

19 having had an impact on how the negotiation is being closed. This could be

explained by the international negotiation being held more and more online (Wang,

2020), where a lot of non-verbal communication is lost due to a decrease in physical

meetings (Hall, 1975). Operating in international context and negotiating about

everything from price to conflict resolution and contracts require a deep understanding

of the different parties involved in the negotiation (Hofstede, 2011; Minkov, 2007),

where the comprehensiveness of the study includes just that. Covid-19 having had an

effect on the closing stage in the phase of face-to-face negotiation of international

negotiations is therefore highly relevant, as the results indicates a connection between

the closing part and the overall negotiation process. Moreover, analyzing the remaining

independent variables, comprehensiveness has the strongest correlation with value as

well (0.59), which indicates a moderate to strong linear relationship between the

variables. This could be explained of them both consisting in the bargaining and closing

stage of the face-to-face negotiation, where the process in overall closely interconnected

(Ghauri, 2006).

4.2.3 Post-negotiation

Implementation

Lastly, 30,4% experienced that Covid-19 had affected the implementation of the

agreement to a 6 out of 7, which indicates a strong change due to Covid-19. Comparing

the independent variables with implementation also has the closest correlation with

value (0.59). To further understand the connection between the dependent variable and

the independent variables, all answers from the 1-7 Likert scale were analyzed with the

59

help of a frequency table to see what specifical percentage of each group agreed and

disagreed on Covid-19s effect on each phase of the international negotiation process.

The results showed that 38,6% of the respondents argued that Covid-19 had affected the

international negotiation process and dependent variable process to av value of 6 out of

7, where 7 were argued to be completely and 1 not at all. Moreover, 15,2% argued

Covid-19 effect on the international negotiation process as a 7 out of 7, which equaled

to completely changed. 24,7% argued the affect as 5 of 7, 13,3% as Neutral, and only

3,5% as Completely unchanged. The remaining percentages argued the affect as

somewhere between completely changed and completely unchanged. Overall, it can be

stated that there was no connection between a change in how the international

negotiation was being executed in the post-negotiation phase and a change in the overall

international negotiation process.

Table 8: Allocation of answers between variables

Prep.=Preparation, Comp.=Comprehensiveness, Imp=Implementation

N = 316

Scale Process Prep. Conflicts Value Comp. Imp. 1 3,48% 3,16% 2,85% 2,53% 1,90% 2,85% 2 1,27% 2,22% 2,53% 2,53% 3,80% 3,48%

3 3,48% 4,75% 5,06% 6,01% 5,38% 5,38%

4 13,29% 15,51% 14,56% 17,41% 13,29% 15,82%

5 24,68% 26,90% 29,75% 31,33% 27,85% 29,11%

6 38,61% 29,75% 32,59% 26,27% 32,91% 30,38% 7 15,19% 17,72% 12,66% 13,92% 14,87% 12,97%

60

4.2 Comparison between continents

To answer the question whether or not there is a difference in how Covid-19 has

affected the international negotiation process between countries, a one-way ANOVA

was performed on one variable of each process step, represented by the variable

preparation and conflicts for the pre-negotiation phase, where preparation represent the

preparation phase and conflicts information exchange. Thereafter, the two variables

value and comprehensiveness represent the face-to-face negotiation, where value

represent the bargaining and comprehensiveness the closing/conclusion.

The null hypothesis in this case states that the population means are all equal, which

would be translated into that there is no difference in how Covid-19 has affected the

dependent variable and that all the population means of Asia, Europe, South America,

and North America are equal. In this study, the significance level is set to 𝛼 = 0.05 is

used to indicate whether or not the variable is statistically significant or not. To give a

better overview over the collected data, a summary of all conducted One-Way

ANOVA’s will be presented below.

Table 9: One Way ANOVA - Sum of variables. *Significance =0.05

ANOVA

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value

Between Groups 15,484 3,000 5,16 2,63 0,05 Preparation Within Groups 594,327 303,000 1,96 Total 609,811 306,000 Between Groups 13,006 3,000 4,34 2,46 0,06 Conflicts Within Groups 534,101 303,000 1,76 Total 547,107 306,000 Between Groups 6,288 3,000 2,10 1,14 0,33 Value Within Groups 554,989 303,000 1,83 Total 561,277 306,000 Between Groups 3,687 3,000 1,23 0,64 0,59 Comprehensviness Within Groups 580,411 303,000 1,92 Total 584,098 306,000 Between Groups 34,648 3,000 11,55 6,32 0,00 Implementation Within Groups 554,050 303,000 1,83 Total 588,697 306,000

61

4.2.1 Pre-negotiation

Preparation

Starting with preparation, the results show a P-value of 0,05, indicating that there is a

difference between how Covid-19 has affected the international negotiation process in

the pre-negotiation phase and stage of preparation. Therefore, the null hypothesis can be

rejected, and it can be stated that the variable of preparation was affected differently

depending upon where the respondents lived. This aligns with Hofstede’s (1980)

concepts of cultural differences, indicating that culture might have had a major

influence upon the international negotiation process (Andersson & Mets, 2020).

Cultural influences between Europe and other continents might have affected the

preparation stage of the international negotiations by varying in how well the different

countries in the continents handle difficulties such as the ongoing pandemic (Wang,

2020). Therefore, understanding each parties’ interests and communicating based upon

cultural differences such as masculinity/femininity and level of uncertainty avoidance

can play an important role in the preparation of an international negotiation (Andersson

& Mets, 2020; Hofstede, 2011; Danciu, 2010, Zhuang & Zhou, 2008).

To examine in which of the continents the difference was most significant, the group

means were examined, where each bar in the table represents one continent. Here, the

results show that South America had the highest mean (5,5) from the Likert scale of a

value between 1 to 7, indicating the highest experience of a change in how the countries

within the continent prepare for an international negotiation. The differentiating part,

however, was seen in Europe (4,7), which indicates a difference in the preparation stage

of the pre-negotiation compared to Asia, South America, and North America. This

could be explained by the continents including different national and cultural

dimensions, affecting how the international negotiations are being prepared for. The

European respondents lived in countries such as Sweden, Norway, Berlin, Spain, and

Italy, where the different cultural dimensions might differ compared to respondents

from the remaining continents (Hofstede, 2011; Hall, 1975). Another explanation for

this could have been that all continents have dealt with the pandemic differently, which

could have affected how respondents from Europe prepare for an international

negotiation compared to Asia, South America and North America (Wang, 2020; Rubin

& Brown, 1975).

62

Respondents in Europe experienced a slightly smaller change in how they prepared for

an international negotiation, where the majority of the respondents would not have

explained the change as something major. This could be explained by different

pandemic laws and regulation (Burris et al, 2021), cultural differences in

communication, strategy and adaptation (Watkins, 2002; Bartos, 1995; Hall, 1976), or

by the respondents varying from different industries and with different job titles (Wang,

2020). The previously mentioned results of the majority of respondents being Managers

withing IT could also be a further speculation for a majority of the European working in

companies where a major part of the international negotiations always have been held

online. This would align with the principled negotiation of the importance of always

understanding all parties’ standpoints and interest (Fisher, Ury & Patton, 1981), which

could vary depending on different cultural dimensions (Andersson & Mets, 2020,

Hofstede, 2011; Minkov, 2007) or how well the negotiation strategies are integrated

(Bartos, 1995).

Separating the people from the problem and looking merely on how and why Covid-19

has affected the international negotiation process between continents therefore becomes

utterly important (Fisher, Ury & Patton, 1981). The European countries of Scandinavia,

Italy, Germany and Spain have all been influenced by the EU-laws and pandemic

guidelines, which could be another reason for the change of preparation slightly

differentiating in Europe compared to other continents (Wang, 2020). To get a better

picture of how the means differentiated between the four continents, an illustration will

be shown below.

63

Figure 9: Means - preparation.

Overall, the results show a difference in two of the five selected variables, which states

that the preparation and implementation stage of how Covid-19 has affected the overall

international negotiation process has differed between the continents. This aligns with

the results of the first research question of this study and indicates that the major

difference in how Covid-19 has affected the international negotiation process has been

in the preparation and implementation stage of the pre-negotiation and post-negotiation

phase. This could be argued to be for many reasons, where both cultural differences,

strategies, and mutual understanding between different counterpart’s could play an

important role (Andersson & Mets, 2020; Hofstede, 2011; Fisher, Ghuari, 2003; Ury &

Patton, 1981; Hall, 1976).

Examining the group means for the variable of conflicts, it can be stated that Europe has

a slightly lower mean (4,6) compared to the other three continents. However, the One-

way ANOVA does not indicate a significant difference between the continents.

To reach a win-win situation and avoid unnecessary conflicts, cooperation, flexibility,

and communication must be fundamental parts of the international negotiation process

between the four continents (Ghauri, 2003; Salacuse, 1999; Rubin & Brown, 1975).

5,14,7

5,5 5,3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Asia Europe South-America North-America

Mea

n (1

-7)

Continents

Preparation

64

Figure 10: Means - conflicts.

4.2.2 Face-to-Face negotiation

Bargaining

The third variable that were used to elaborate weather or not Covid-19’s effect on the

international negotiation process varied between the four continents was value. The

results show a P-value of >0,05. Therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, and it

can be stated that value is the second variable used where there is no evidence of

conflicts differentiating in any of the continents.

Figure 11: Means - Value.

5,3

4,6

5,3 5,1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Asia Europe South-America North-America

Mea

n (1

-7)

Continents

Conflicts

5,24,8 4,9 5,2

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

Asia Europe South-AmericaNorth-America

Mea

n (1

-7)

Continents

Value

65

Conclusion/Closing

The fourth variable to be analyzed were the one of comprehensiveness. Here, the results

equal to previous results and a P-value of 0,59 is presented, stating that there is no

statistically significant evidence that Covid-19’s effect on the comprehensiveness of the

international negotiation process varies between the chosen continents in this study.

Thus, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, and it can be stated that value is the second

variable used where there is no evidence of conflicts differentiating in any of the

continents. To get a better overview of the results, see Figure 12 below.

Figure 12: Means - Comprehensiveness.

4.2.3 Post-Negotiation

Execution

To fully answer the research question, implementation was used as the final variable the

in the process of knowing how Covid-19 has affected the international negotiation

process. Implementation is part of the final execution of the negotiation outcome and

here, the P-value of <0,05 indicated that there is a connection between how Covid-19

has affected the international negotiation process and the post-negotiation phase of the

overall negotiation. Therefore, the null hypothesis can be rejected, and it can clearly be

stated that there is a statistically significant difference in how the continents experience

Covid-19 to have affected the implementation part of the international negotiation,

where Europe differed from the rest. This could be explained by cultural differences

5,45,0 5,2 5,2

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

Asia Europe South-America North-America

Mea

n (1

-7)

Continents

Comprehensiveness

66

between the continents, type of negotiation conducted, or simply by different laws and

restrictions regarding Covid-19 (Wang, 2020). European countries have all been

handling the pandemic differently, which could create an unbalance in which countries

the respondents where from (WHO, 2020). Understanding what makes the difference of

how the continents implement the negotiation outcomes could be based on many

factors. First, The European culture could be argued to differ compared to Asia, South

America and North America, where European countries might focus on another way of

communicating, avoiding uncertainty, or which could be one of the underlying reasons

for the result (Hofstede, 2011).

To examine the group means further, the group means were examined. Each staple in

the table represents one of the four continents, where South America has the highest

mean with a value of around 5,4 from the Likert scale of a value between 1 to 7,

compared to Europe who has a mean of around 4,1, which indicates that the European

respondents did not agree to Covid-19 having had an effect of the execution of

international negotiations compared to respondents from Asia, South America and

North America. This could also be of different continents using different strategies and

tactics of implementing the international negotiation, where different industries and

cultural dimensions play an important role in how the negotiation is being executed

(Hofstede, 1980; Rubin & Brown, 1975). The international negotiation being executed

differently due to covid-19 between continents could be because of how they decide to

act and communicate, where the level of Low-context and High-context cultures differ

depending on what continent the respondents lived in (Hall, 1976). This could also be

one of the underlying reasons for the increased number of conflicts in the international

negotiation process, as mutual understanding and being able to separate the people from

the problem is vital when reaching for an overall success in international negotiations

(Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1981). Therefore, the results of the study highlight the

importance of understanding cultures in order to avoid future conflicts and to reach

mutual agreement (Hofstede, 2011; Minkov, 2007). Insisting in objective criteria and

understanding all parties’ interests therefore becomes crucial for finding solutions and

remaining an overall positive international negotiation during the pandemic of Covid-

19, where building strong and healthy relationships, satisfactory agreements, and long-

term partnerships would favor all parties involved in an international negotiation

(Zhuang & Zhou, 2008; Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1981).

67

Figure 13: Means – implementation.

5,2

4,1

5,45,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

Asia Europe South-AmericaNorth-America

Mea

n (1

-7)

Continents

Implementation

68

5. Conclusions & Further research

This chapter summarizes the analysis and discusses the outcome of the study, where the

research questions are answered based upon its outcome. Thereafter, contributions,

limitations and further research of the study are discussed as a final part of the research.

The purpose of this study was to investigate how covid-19 has affected the international

negotiation process, as well as investigating whether or not there is a connection

between the process variables and a change in the overall negotiation process.

Moreover, the study aimed to compare different continents to see if the Covid-19 has

affected the process differently between the continent Asia, Europe, North America and

South America. Looking at the analysis done previously in this study, it can be stated

that Covid-19 has affected the international negotiation process by making the

negotiation both more effective and digitalized. However, the conflicts seem to have

increased and thus, the relationships have suffered.

Answering the first and second question, it can be concluded that Covid-19 has affected

the international negotiation process remarkably. However, there was no significant

proof arguing for that being the case throughout all stages of the international

negotiation process. The results showed that a change in the stage of preparation,

information exchange, bargaining and closing were connected to an overall change in

the international negotiation process, which states that there is a connection between a

change in the process variables and the overall international negotiation process.

However, there was no proof of a connection between a change in the execution stage of

the post-negotiation phase and the overall international negotiation process. Moreover,

the result of this study shows that the overall negotiation process is highly sensitive to

changes in the pre-negotiation and face-to-face negotiation phase, but not as sensitive to

changes in the phase of post-negotiation.

Moreover, it can be concluded that Covid-19 has affected the international negotiation

process differently between countries, where Europe differed from Asia, South America

and North America by not experiencing an equal amount of change in how Covid-19

has affected the preparation and execution stage of the post-negotiation phase of the

overall international negotiation process.

69

5.1 Contributions

This study contributes to prior research within the area of international business

negotiations by highlighting how Covid-19 affects the international negotiation process.

By gaining an understanding that Covid-19’s primary affect has been in the preparation

stage of the pre-negotiation phase as well as in the implementation stage of the post-

negotiation phase, international negotiators can gain better prerequisites of the initial

negotiations and prevent further conflicts or disagreements. The results of the study

showed an increase in conflicts due to the Covid-19 and the digitalized negotiation

process. This could be connected with the major differences in the preparation and

implementation stage of international negotiations and could therefore be seen as a call

for action. On the other hand, the results also indicates that the effectiveness of the

negotiations seemed to increase by the more remote way of working compared to before

the pandemic. This indicates that it would be a good decision for international

negotiators to keep part of the negotiations digitalized, which can be seen as a valuable

insight and contribution resulting from the study.

Combining the insights of increased effectiveness, increased conflicts, and a

relationship between preparation and implementation to the overall negotiation process

creates a better understanding to better cope with the situation. By putting more effort

into building trustful relationships and preparing for the negotiations as well as re-

evaluating new ways of implementing the negotiation outcomes, conflicts could

possibly be reduced, and the effectiveness remained. This is a valuable contribution of

the study, as international successful negotiations play a fundamental part in the world

economy (Kabuoh et al., 2015).

The research also contributes by supporting previous research such as the relevance of

using Ghauri’s (2003) three stage model of negotiation as well as the importance of

cultural aspects and implementation of principled negotiation in the international

negotiation process (Hofstede, 2011; Fisher, Ury & Patton, 1981). As the results

suggests, Covid-19 has affected the international negotiation process differently across

continents regarding the stage of preparation and implementation, which confirms and

contributes to previous research regarding cultures importance in the context of

international negotiations (Andersson & Mets, 2019; Hofstede, 2011; Danciu, 2010).

70

International negotiations and its process can be a crucial factor in gaining competitive

advantage, especially during tough times like during a global pandemic. Therefore, the

topic of understanding how Covid-19 has affected international negotiation processes

can be of interest to both business owners, strategists, academics, and other

practitioners. Thus, this research can contribute with enhanced knowledge and give the

tools to further work with coping and understanding pandemics as such in relation to the

international negotiation process (Patel & Davidsson, 2011). Businesses could therefore

benefit from this thesis by understanding how the international negotiation process has

been affected and how things such as national culture and specific industry does as well.

Furthermore, the thesis could not only contribute with valuable insights to practitioners

but to academics as well, filling out a gap in literature that has been existing and

suggesting further research where the lack of information is apparent.

6.2 Limitations and further research

Since this study was made during a limited period of time, it can be argued to not meet

its full potential. The findings presented illustrated the perspective of 316 negotiators

and their personal view upon Covid-19 and its impact on the process of international

business negotiations. Since the majority of participants was from the Asia and North

America, it can be argued that a more diversified sample would have given more

reliable and generalizable results, where further research could gather information from

a wider extent of participants over the continents. Having wider spread of cultures in

the answers could affect the results of this study, as all cultures and countries deal with

difficulties such as the pandemic, differently.

Moreover, the majority of participants were from various industries pending from IT to

manufacturing and education. This gave a satisfactory spread on industries and a broad

insight how the perceptions have differed between them. However, it could be argued

hard to get an accurate picture with having such a spread of industries. Future research

could therefore focus on the difference between how Covid-19 has affected the

international negotiation process and why. This would be an interesting topic to

discover since different industries have been affected so differently depending on their

industries and primary area of work. While e-commerce has exploded and online

retailers reaped the benefits of a more digitalized world, industries being dependent on

71

the actual customer being physically there has been tormented. Moreover, further

research could be done analyzing negotiation phases and how these have been affected

during the global pandemic through a stage model approach or an episodic

approach. Such research would highlight broader areas of the whole negotiation

process.

The impact of Covid-19 on international negotiations processes is a field yet to be

discovered. Since Covid-19 has had a primary effect on the businesses and individuals

working within the affected organizations, it would also make for an interesting topic to

further research on how the micro-strategic view on international business negotiations

has been affected by the pandemic. In-depth research investigating the negotiation

process in all of its three phases (Ghuari, 2003) would give a broader understanding and

perspective on the international negotiation process at its whole. More countries could

be included, numbers of participants increased, and the time period of the study

lengthened. Lastly, further research about how digitalization due to the pandemic

affected the effectiveness of the international negotiation could be elaborated on even

further.

72

7. References

Aguinis, H., Villamor, I. & Ramani, R. S. (2020). MTurk Research: review and

Recommendations. SAGE Journals.

Alvarez, M., & Kennedy, J. M. (2006). Negotiation theory and practice.

Stanford, CA: Morrison Foerster.

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and

dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top

management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–148

Andersson, V. & Mets, A. (2019). Cross-Cultural Business Negotiations.

The Impact of Business Cultures from a Swedish Perspective. Karlstad

University.

Andersson, S. (2014). Om Positivism och Hermeneutik. Studentlitteratur.

Atkin, T.S., Reinhart, L.M., (2006), The effect of Negotiation Practices on

the Relationship between Suppliers and Customers. Negotiation Journal (1):

47-65.

Ballesteros, L., & Gatignon, A. (2019). The relative value of firm and

nonprofit experience: Tackling large-scale social issues across institutional

contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 40(4), 631-657.

Bartos, O.J. (1995). Modeling Distributive and Integrative Negotiations.

SAGE journals

Basabe, N. & Ros, M. (2005). Cultural Dimensions and Social Behavior

Correlates: Individualism-Collectivism and Power Distance. International

Review of Social Psychology, 18 (1), 189-225.

73

Benetti, S., Qgliastri, E. & Caputo, A. (2021). Distributive/Integrative Negotiation

Strategies in International Contexts: A Comparative Study. Journal of Management &

Organization

Bhagat, R. S., & McQuaid, S. J. (1982). Role of subjective culture in organizations: A

review and directions for future research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(5), 653–

685.

Brammer, S., Branicki, L., Linnenluecke, K.M. (2020). COVID-19, Socialization and

the Future of Business in Society. Academy of Management Perspectives 34(4)

Barry, B & Friedman, R. A. (1998) Bargainer Characteristics in Distributive and

Integrative Negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 74, No. 2,

pp. 345-359

Bryman, A., Bell, E. (2011). Business research methods. Oxford university

press.

Bryman, A & Bell, E. (2017). Företagsekonomiska Forskningsmetoder. 3rd

edition. Stockholm: Liber

Burris, S., Anderson, E.D. & Wagenaar, A.C. (2021). The ‘’Legal

Epidemiology’’ of Pandemic Control. The New England Journal of

Medicine. 384:1973-1975

Chakraborty, I. & Maity, P. (2020). COVID-19 outbreak: Migration,

effects on society, global environment and prevention. Science of The

Total Environment, 728:138882

Crump, Larry (2006). “Competitively-linked and Non-competitively-linked

Negotiations: Bilateral Trade Policy Negotiations in Australia, Singapore and the

United Stated.” International Negotiation 11, 3: 431–466.

74

Cullen, B. J. & Paraboteeah, P. (2008). Multinational management: a strategic

approach. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western Pub. (4).

Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. & Kochan, T. (2015). A Behavioral Theory Advancing

Negotiation Scholarship and Practice. Negotiation 31(4), 319-331.

Dahmström, K. (2011). Från datainsamling till rapport - att göra en statistisk

undersökning. 5. uppl., Polen: Studentlitteratur.

Danciu, V. (2010). The Impact of the Culture on the International Negotiations: An

Analysis Based on Contextual Comparisons. Theoretical and Applied Economics.

8(549): 87-102.

Deresky, H. (2006). International Management: Managing Across Borders and Cultures.

5 ed. Person Education.

Divisi, D., Di Leonardo, G., Zaccagna, G. & Crisci, R. (2017). Basic Statistics with

Microsoft Excel: a Review. J Thorac Dis. 9(6): 1734-1740.

Dupont, C. (2002) International business negotiations, In Kremenyuk (1978).

International negotiation: Analysis, Approach, Issues, Second Edition

Dupont, C. & Faure, G.O. (1991). ‘’The Negotiation Process,’’ in V. Kremenyuk (ed.)

International Negotiation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Edmondson, D., E. (2005). Likert Scales: A History. University of South Florida,

Charm.

Faure, G.O. (1978). International Negotiation: The Cultural Dimension, In Kremenyuk

(1978). International negotiations: Analysis, Approach, Issues.

2 ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in.

(B. Patton, Ed.) New York: Penguin.

75

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement

Without Giving In. Houghton Mifflin.

Field, A. (2015). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 4. uppl., London:

SAGE Publications Ltd

Forsberg, C. & Wengström, Y. (2016). Att göra systematiska litteraturstudier: värdering

analys och present. 4 ed: Natur Kultur Akademisk

Gelfand, M.J, & Brett, J.M. (2004) The handbook of negotiation and culture. Stanford,

California. Stanford University Press.

Ghauri, P. N. (2003). A Framework for International Business Negotiations. In Ghauri,

P. N. & Usunier, J-C. (eds.) (2003). International Business Negotiations. 2. ed. Oxford:

Pergamon, pp. 3-22.

Ghauri, P., & Usunier, J-C. (1996). International Business Negotiations. Kidlington,

Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Habibi, A., & Damasio, A. (2014). Music, feelings, and the human

brain. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain, 24(1), 92–102.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor.

Hall, E. T. (1959). The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday; translated to Japanese

in 1966 by Masao Kunihiro, Yoshimi Nagai and Mitsuko Saito as Chinmoku No

Kotoba. Tokyo: Nanundo.

Herbig, P. (1997). External influences in the cross-cultural negotiation process.

Industrial Management and Data Systems, 97(4), 158-168. doi:

10.1108/02635579710173248

Hofstede, G. (2021). National Culture. Hi.hifstede-insights.com. [online] Available at:

76

<https://hi.hofstede-insights.com/national-culture> [Accessed May 10 2021].

Hopmann, P.T. (2002). Negotiating Data: Reflections on the Qualitative and

Quantitative Analysis of Negotiation Processes. International Negotiation 7: 67-85.

Kluwer Academic Publishers

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context.

Psychology and Culture, 2(1). doi: 10.9707/2307-0919.1014

Hofstede, G. & Bond, M. (1984). Hofstede's Culture Dimensions: An Independent

Validation Using Rokeach's Value Survey. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology - J

CROSS-CULT PSYCHOL. 15. 417-433. 10.1177/0022002184015004003.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related

values. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Hollensen, S. (2012). Essentials of Global Marketing. (2): Pearson

Johannesson, A. & Tufte, P. A. (2003). Introduktion till samhällsvetenskaplig metod.

(1):Liber

Kabuoh, M.N, Egwuonwu, T.K, Ajike, E.O. (2015). The Effect of Negotiation on Sales

Performance in an Organization. Babock University, Ilishan, Ogun State Nigeria.

Keegan, D. (1996). Foundations of Distance Education. Psychology press.

Kim, Y. Y. (2017). Cross cultural adaptation. Oxford university press. doi:

10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.21

Korac-Kakabadse, N., Kouzmin, A., Korac-Kakabadse, A. & Savery, L. (2001). Low-

and HighContext Communication Patterns: Towards Mapping Cross-Cultural

Encounters. Cross-Cultural Management: An international Journal, 8(2), 3-24. doi:

10.1108/13527600110797218

77

Korobkin, R. (2009). Negotiation: Theory and strategy (2nd ed.). Wolters Kluwer

Law & Business.

Korobkin, R. (2009). Libertarian Welfarism. SSRN Electronic Journal 97(6)

Leigh, I.E., Khakhar, P. (2015), The Effect of Negotiator Characteristics on the

Success of International B2B Negotiations. Proceeding International Marketing

Trends Conference.

Lee, C. (2007). The new rules of international negotiation. Franklin Lakes, NJ: The

Career Press.

Lewicki, R. J., Minton, J. W., & Saunders, D. M. (1999). Negotiation. McGraw-

Hill/Irwin; 3.

Long, L.W, Javidi, M. & Normore, A.H. (2016). Handbook of Research on Effective

Communication, Leadership, and Conflict Resolution. IGI Global Publisher of Timely

Knowledge.

Luo, Y. (1999). Toward a conceptual framework of international joint venture

negotiations. Journal of International Management, 5, 141-65. doi: 10.1016/s1075-

4253(99)00010-1

Malhotra, N. K (2010). Marketing research: an applied orientation. Pearson.

Manrai, L. A. & Manrai, A. K. (2010). The influence of Culture in International

Business Negotiations: A New Conceptual Framework and Managerial Implication.

Journal of Transnational Management, 15(1), 69-100. doi:

10.1080/15475770903584607

Mattsson, P. & Örtenblad, A. (2008). Smått och Gott: Om Vetenskapliga Rapporter och

Referensteknik. Studentlitteratur.

78

Matsumoto, D. (1996). Culture and Psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole

Publishing Company

McKay, B., Arevuo, M., MacKay, D., Meadows, M. (2020). Strategy – Theory,

practice, Implementation. 1st edition. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press

Meerts, P. (2015). Diplomatic Negotiation: Essence and Evolution. Clingendael

Minkov, M. (2007). What makes us different and similar: A new interpretation of the

World Values Survey and other cross-cultural data. Sofia, Bulgaria: Klassiska i Stil.

Moor, Aldo & Weigand, Hans. (2004). Business Negotiation Support: Theory and

Practice. International Negotiation. 9. 31-57.

Mutikani, L. (2020). Coronavirus: Over 20 million Americans have now applied for

unemployment benefit. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

Mattsson, P. & Örtenblad, A. (2008). Smått och gott: om vetenskapliga rapporter och

referensteknik. (1): Studentlitteratur

Misra, S. (2014). The iPhone Effect: The Quality of In-Person Social Interactions in the

Presence of Mobile Devices. SAGE Publications.

Neuman, W. K. (2002). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches, Toronto_ Allyn and Bacon.

Nishimura, S., Nevgi, A., & Seppo, T. (2013). Communication Style and Cultural

Features in High/Low Context Communication Cultures: A Case Study of Finland,

Japan and India. Weseda University & University of Helsinki 783-796.

Odell, J. S. (2002). Creating Data on International Negotiation Strategies, Alternatives

and Outcomes. International Negotiation, 7(1), 39-52. doi:

10.1163/157180602401262410

79

Patel, R. & Davidson, B. (2011). Forskningsmetodikens grunder: att planera, genomföra

och rapportera en undersökning. (4): Studentlitteratur.

Persson, A. (2016). Frågor och svar. Örebro: Svenska centralbyrån.

Pruitt D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Mapping social psychology series. Negotiation

in social conflict. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation Behavior. Academic Press (1).

Rienecker, L. & Jørgensen, P. S. (2018). Att skriva en bra uppsats. (4):Liber.

Rogers, E.M, Hart, B.W, & Miike, Y. (2002). Edward T. Hall and The History of

Intercultural Communication: The United States and Japan. Keio Communication

Review No. 24, 2002.

Rubin, J.Z. & Brown, B.B. (1975). The Social Psychology of Bargaining and

Negotiation. New York: Academic Press. 359 pp.

Salacuse, J. W. (1999). Intercultural Negotiation in International Business. Group

Decision and Negotiation, 8(3), 217–236. doi: 10.1023/a:1008660330550

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research Methods for Business

Students. (7): Pearson, Harlow.

Semnani-Azad, Z. & Adair, W. L. (2011) The Display of ‘Dominant’ Nonverbal Cues

in Negotiation: The Role of Culture and Gender. International Negotiation, 16(3) 451-

479.

Sergeev. M.V (1991)’Metaphors for Understanding International Negotiation’. In

Kremenyuk (1978). International negotiation: Analysis, Approach, Issues, 2nd Edition.

Jossey-Bass.

80

Shi, X., Wright, P. (2001), Developing and Validating an International Business

Negotiators Profile. Journal of Managerial Psychology 16 (5) 2-15.

Thomas, L. (2020). An introduction to simple random sampling. Scribbr

Thompson, L., Lucas, B., & Hall, E. (2014). Negotiator bandwidth. In O. B. Ayoko, N.

M. Ashkanasy, & K. A. Jehn (Eds.), Handbook of conflict management research (p.

461–479). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781006948.00040

Vetenskapsrådet (2017). Good research practice. Swedish research council.

Wall, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of

Management, 21, 515–558

Walton, R.E & McKersie, R.B (1965). Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations.

McGraw-Hill.

Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J. & Parker, S. K. (2020) Achieving Effective Remote

Working During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Work Design Perspective. Appl Psychol.

Watershed, A (2021) Negotiation Stage Introduction. Best Negotiation Practices.

Watkins, M. (2002). Breakthrough business negotiation: A toolkit for managers.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Weingart, L. R., Olekalns, M., Smith, P. L. (2004). Quantitative Coding of Negotiation

Nehavior. International negotiation 9(3):441-456

Weiss, E.S. (2006). International Business Negotiation in a Globalizing World:

Reflection on the Contributions and Future of a (Sub) Field. International

Negotiation.

Weiss, E.S. (2004). “International Business Negotiations Research: Revisiting

‘Bricks, Mortar, and Prospects,’ in Handbook of International Management

81

Research. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Weinberg, S. & Abramowitz, S. (2015). Statistics Using IBM SPSS - An Integrative

Approach. 3. uppl., New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wertheim, E. (2002). Negotiations and resolving conflicts: An overview. College of

Business Administration: Northeastern University.

World Health Organization (2021). Who Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard.

World health organization.

Zartman, I. W. (1993). A sceptic’s view. In Faure, G.O. & Rubin, J. Z. (eds) (1993).

Culture And Negotiation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, pp. 17–21.

Zhang, T., & Zhou, H. (2008). The significance of cross-cultural communication

in international business negotiation. International Journal of Business and

Management, 3(2), 103-109.

82

8. Appendixes

Appendix 1 - Survey

International Negotiations During Covid-19

Dear participant,

Thank you for your interest in taking our survey.

This questionnaire is part of an academic research as a part of the One Year Master in

Strategy & Management control at Linköping university.

We want to investigate how Covid-19 has affected the international negotiation process.

That’s why we value your thoughts about your experience in international negotiations

during the last year of the Pandemic. To assure top quality of the study, we kindly ask to

limit this survey to those who have taken part of any international negotiation during the

time period of the pandemic only.

We securely store this data until the end of June this year, when the research period is

over.

We respect your trust and protect your privacy, and therefore will never sell or share

this data with any third parties.

By filling out this form you agree that we will process your data in line with Linköping

University’s privacy policy.

You have full right to at any time access, view, and withdraw your answers from the

survey results. If you have any questions or change your mind, you can contact us via:

lisos827@student.liu.se

Good luck!

83

Part 1: Demographics

Please provide your worker ID (For MTurk respondents only)

• Short answer text

Question 1: Where is your current place of residence?

• Australia

• Asia

• Australia/Oceania

• Europe

• North America

• South America

Question 2: Please specify in which country

• Short answer text

Question 3: How would you describe your gender?

• Male

• Female

• Non-Binary

• Prefer not to say

Question 4: What is your age?

• 18-24

• 25-34

• 35-44

• 45-54

• 55-64

• 65+

Question 5: What is your primary role/work title?

• Short answer text

84

Question 6: What industry are you working in?

• Short answer text

Question 7: How long have you been working in the company that you currently work

for?

• Short answer text

Part 2: The International negotiation process

Question 8: During Covid-19, approximately how many different countries have you

negotiated with? Please specify which.

• Long answer text

Question 9: During the pandemic, have the number of international negotiations at your

firm changed?

• Yes, increased

• Don’t know/Not sure

• No, Unchanged

• Yes, Decreased

Question 10: Please briefly describe your last international negotiation during Covid-

19.

• Long answer text

Question 11: To what extent do you experience Covid-19 has changed the overall

process of international negotiations?

(1) Not at all to,

(7) Completely

85

Question 12: In my country of residence, Covid-19 has affected international

negotiations by making communication more digitalized

(1) Not at all to,

(7) Completely

Question 13: Business relationships are harder to develop during Covid-19 in relation

to what it was before the pandemic.

(1) Strongly Disagree,

(7) Strongly Agree

Question 14: During Covid-19, International negotiations has affected the

comprehensiveness of the negotiation outcome.

(1) Strongly Disagree,

(7) Strongly Agree

Question 15: To what extent to you experience that the effectiveness of the negotiation

has changed due to Covid-19?

(1) Not at all to,

(7) Completely

Question 16: How do you view the effectiveness of the negotiation has changed?

• More effective

• Unchanged

• More ineffective

Question 17: To what extent do you experience that the number of conflicts has

changed during Covid-19?

(1) Not at all to,

(7) Completely

86

Question 18: How do you view that the number of conflicts has changed?

• More conflicts

• Unchanged

• Less conflicts

Question 19: During the current pandemic, do you reach your goals with your

international negotiations?

•

(1) Not at all to,

(7) Completely

Question 20: To what extent do you feel that Covd-19 has changed the way you

prepare for an international negotiation?

(1) Not at all to,

(7) Completely

Question 21: To what extent do you feel Covid-19 has affected your Best Alternative

To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)?

(1) Not at all to,

(7) Completely

Question 22: Please specify how:

• Long answer text

Question 23: To what extent do you feel that Covid-19 has affected the way you

exchange information and validation during an international negotiation?

(1) Not at all to,

(7) Completely

87

Question 24: To what extent do you feel that Covid-19 has affected the way you close a

deal or conclude the international negotiation?

(1) Not at all to,

(7) Completely

Question 25: To what extent do you feel that Covid-19 has affected how you create and

distribute value during an international negotiation?

(1) Not at all to,

(7) Completely

Question 26: To what extent do you feel Covid-19 has affected the implementation of

the agreement?

(1) Not at all to,

(7) Completely

Part 3: Principled negotiation

Question 27: In an international negotiation, how do you treat the counterpart?

• Friend

• Colleague

• Rival

• Impersonal

• Other

Question 28: In an international negotiation, are you likely to express emotions?

• Yes

• No

Question 29: In an international negotiation, do you try to know and fulfill the

expectations of the other party?

• Yes

88

• No

Question 30: Is the international negotiation essentially a bargaining process based on

the initial proposal?

• Yes

• No

Question 31: In international negotiations, does first proposal include mutual interests?

• Yes

• No

Question 32: How do you primary see the process of a negotiation?

• Distributive value

• Create and distribute value

Question 33: In international negotiations, do you use objective criteria to justify

offers?

• Yes

• No

Question 34: In international negotiations, are technicians involved in the negotiation

process?

• Yes

• No

If you have any queries or additional comments concerning this study, please let me

know below.

• Long answer text (optional)

Thank you for your cooperation - This study was conducted by Liza Sarnet as a part of

her Master Thesis in Strategy & Management control at Linköping University in

Sweden.

89

Appendix 2: All variables included in the study

Fisher-Ury-Patton

Variables Variable definition Answers

Separate the people from the problem

Counterpart How do they treat the counterpart?

Friend

Colleague

Rival

Impersonal

Other

Emotions Do they express emotions in negotiations?

Yes (they explore the interest of the other party)

No (they insist on the original proposal for a good while)

90

Focus on interest (not position)

Expectations

Do they try to know and fulfill the expectations of the other party?

Yes (they explore the interests of the other party)

No (they concentrate just on their own interests)

Bargain

Is it essentially a bargaining process based on the initial proposal?

Yes (They insist on the original proposal for a good while)

No (they try to integrate mutual value first)

Invent options for mutual gain

Mutuality Does first proposal include mutual interests?

Yes (mutual interests)

No (only individual interests)

Negotiation How do they see the process of negotiation?

Distributive value (distributive, traditional, zero-sum game)

Create and distribute value (integrative, principled, interest-based, mutual gains)

Insist on objective criteria

Objectivity Do they use objective criteria to justify offers?

Yes (they use data, technical considerations, fact-based proposals)

91

No (they use purely subjective bargaining, haggling)

Technicians Are technicians involved in the negotiation process?

Yes (they use data, technical considerations, fact-based proposals)

No (little influence of technical staff in negotiation)

3 stages 5 Stages Variables Variable definition

Pre-negotiation

Preparation Preparation To what extent do you feel that Covid-19 has changed the way you prepare for an international negotiation?

BATNA To what extent do you feel Covid-19 has affected your BATNA?

Relationships Business relationships are harder to develop during Covid-19 in relation to what it was before the pandemic

Information exchange

Validation To what extent do you feel that Covid-19 has affected the way you exchange information and validation during an international negotiation?

92

Conflicts To what extent do you experience that the number of conflicts has changed during Covid-19?

Face-to-face negotiation

Bargain Value To what extent do you feel that Covid-10 has affected how you create and distribute value during an international negotiation?

Effectiveness To what extent to you experience that the effectiveness of the negotiation has changed due to Covid-19?

Conclude Conclusion To what extent do you feel that Covid-19 has affected the way you close a deal or conclude the international negotiation?

Comprehensiveness During Covid-19, international negotiations have affected the comprehensiveness of the negotiation outcome.

Post-negotiation

Execute Implementation To what extent do you feel Covid-19 has affected the implementation of the agreement

Goals During the current pandemic, do you reach your goals with your international negotiations?

93