An American company and a Japanese company formed a joint-venture to manufacture gauges and measurement equipment for sale in Asia.
The American firm was supposed to supply the technology; the Japanese partner would manufacture and market the products.
Once per quarter on average, a Hong Kong-based American executive would visit the venture’s operations in Japan to review strategies and major decisions with the other side.
Between visits, the two sides communicated through occasional phone calls.
Over time, the American company’s strategy changed from developing a broad array of technology to focusing on a relatively small number of products, but the Americans never communicated the change to their Japanese partner.
As a result, the Japanese firm became convinced that the Americans were acting in bad faith – denying the joint-venture the new technology that it needed to stay competitive.
Eventually, the situation evolved into a bitter dispute that led to the liquidation of the joint-venture. Had the two sides discussed and agreed on a communication strategy for their partnership during initial contract negotiations, they might have avoided the conflict.
When you download the New Conflict Management: Effective Conflict Resolution Strategies to Avoid Litigation you will learn how wise negotiators extract unexpected value using an indirect approach to conflict management.
Related Article: Want the Best Possible Deal? Cultivate a Cooperative Reputation
This is a very common issue that I face when bridging the negotiation stage between two parties from two different cultures. I completely agree that both parties must understand that open communication from the very beginning is the key to a successful business negotiation. Assumption based thinking will only lead to a problem of distrust in the long run.