Foundational Change Management Theories discussion As a global change agent, independent scholar, and current or future business professional, you may beco

Foundational Change Management Theories discussion As a global change agent, independent scholar, and current or future business professional, you may become responsible for initiating or managing multiculturalism initiatives. This can be a complex task, depending on the nature and structure of the organization. Having the foundational works of theorists may help you reach your goals, however, because within these theories are constructs or tenets that, when applied, can shape your own view and strategic approach to multicultural management for the purpose of mitigating risks, as well as supporting organizational initiatives.

To prepare for this Assignment, review this week’s Learning Resources as well as any additional sources of your choosing. Research the theorists who developed theories related to multicultural management, and compile key information as part of your review.

An evaluation of at least three foundational theories in the form of a properly formatted, APA-compliant taxonomy table. For each of the theories you select, you should include the following:

The name of the theory
The year the theory was introduced
The theorist/author
Key components of the theory
Statement of how the theory will help you apply the rules and tips provided by the literature

For each theory presented, be sure to include a minimum of two references to peer-reviewed, scholarly journals, as well as appropriate in-text citations. H o w to
U.S. Secretary o f State John
K e n y delivers remarks at a State
Luncheon in the Chinese President’s
honor at the U.S. Department o f State in
Washington, D.C., on September 25, 2015. [State
Department photo/Public Domain]
C o n d u c t A n
In te r n a tio n a l
N e g o tia tio n :
1 0
T ip s
F ro m
A
_
G lo b a l S e c u r it y
C o n s u lta n t
By Luke Bencie
T
here is considerable debate rig h t now about the US-lranian n uclear deal. W as it fa ir? W ho w on and w ho lost?
Was too m uch or too little le ft on the bargaining table? The
answ ers to these questions w ill m ost lik e ly only be know n
over tim e. Regardless, negotiating w ith persons from an­
other country can often be s ig n ifica n tly m ore d iffic u lt than
negotiating w ith someone from your ow n nation. Yet in the
global business arena, these negotiations take place everyday.
Numbers represent the truly universal
business language. No matter the dialect,
no matter the inflection and no matter the
monetary unit, the numbers don’t lie, par­
ticularly when they’re carefully studied.
Profits and losses, cash-flow statements,
annual growth percentages and balance
14
sheets all translate easily across borders. If
you’re going to player on the global stage,
you’ll need to understand the numbers and be able to negotiate them anywhere
with anyone around the planet. Between
cultural differences, language barriers, and
geopolitical issues, the more passports are
involved, the more complicated the negotia­
tion can become.
Based on personal experience of doing
business in over 100 countries, discussions
with colleagues, and wisdom derived from
other resources, here are my 10 Most Useful
U.S. Secretary o f State John Kerry sits with Iranian
Foreign Minister Javad Zarif before the two resume
negotiations about the future o f Iran s nuclear pro­
gram on January 14, 2015, in Geneva, Switzerland.
[State Department photo/ Public Domain]
*
Tips, each critical to achieving a win-win,
for how to pull off an effective international
negotiation (excerpted from my book, Global
Security Consulting: How to Build a Thriving
International Practice):
1. Do your homework. In any negotiation,
particularly an international one, you must
conduct research on your prospective partners
as well as the deal itself. You must uncover
as many details as possible, because knowl­
edge is power, and within knowledge resides
confidence. Start by examining the history
o f any previous deals the partners have done,
including their possible constraints:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
How long did previous negotiations take?
How much money was involved?
What negotiating style was used?
Was ego evident in completing the deal?
Were there personal situations, such as
divorce, that impacted the negotiations?
More basic, what’s in this new deal for them?
Are there cultural sensitivities or issues
involved?
You should also research industry trends and
market forecasts to help understand the terms
under which the deal was set. This broader
perspective might also provide clues about
your prospective partner’s thought processes
and the underlying reason why he is consider­
ing doing business with you. Never walk into
an international negotiation blindly.
2. Listen more than you speak. Some people
speak when they should listen; that’s a potential
kiss o f death in international negotiation. There
seems to be a misconception that the person who
talks the most in a negotiation is somehow win­
ning. Don’t fall for it. I always try to listen more
than I speak, because I can only give away my
position by talking. By listening, I have a bet­
ter chance o f understanding the other person’s
motivations and objectives. Plus, the less I say,
the more I keep the other side guessing.
3. Be polite. D on’t feel bad if you hate the
thought o f negotiating. Few people truly en­
joy the process. But it’s necessary for doing
business, particularly overseas. And if that’s
the case, you want to do everything you can,
within reason, to put your counterparts at
ease, and the best way is to show good man­
ners. Besides, doing business is always bet­
ter when you like the people you’re dealing
with. Life’s too short for you to work with
a m istrusted partner. It’s always better to
discuss your expectations sooner rather than
later. It demonstrates respect and encourages
cooperation. Anytime you don’t trust the per­
son sitting across the negotiating table from
you, politely excuse yourself and leave. You
don’t need the headaches such a relationship
inevitably will create.
O f course, the other side might not give you
an honest answer. But it’s your responsibility
to employ your BS detector. The important
thing to remember is if you’re wondering, ask.
6. Trust but verify. This phrase was made
famous by President Ronald Reagan referring
to the relationship between the United States
and Soviet Union during the Cold War. Cer­
tainly you want to be friendly and respectful
to your negotiating partners – and you hope
they will extend you the same courtesy. Just be
sure you’re not being played for a fool. D on’t
take the other person’s claims as fact until
you have performed your own due-diligence.
I
4. Be flexible. To put it another way, bend but
don’t break. I don’t necessarily mean you need
to make unnecessary concessions, particularly
on pricing matters. But being flexible means
y ou’re willing to consider alternatives and
unconventional options in lieu o f digging
your heels in on price. A word o f caution: It’s
important for both sides to be flexible. If you
sense you’re the only one giving ground, be
aware that your counterparts might be trying
to take advantage o f you. Be flexible, but
insist – politely – on reciprocity.
5. Ask probing questions. You need to learn
how to ask the right questions to discover your
partner’s N eeds, Wants, W ounds, A uthor­
ity and Money (NWWAM). There’s nothing
wrong with asking someone why they are
behaving in a particular way.
™
B u t
m
b e in g
e a n s
y o u ’ r e
c o n s id e r
a n d
o p t io n s
y o u r
A
w
im
y o u
lie u
h e e ls
s id e s
to
b e
o n e
in s is t
–
p r ic e .
f o r
y o u ’ r e
t h a t
t a k e
B e
d ig g in g
b o th
f le x ib le .
c o u n t e r p a r t s
y o u .
o n
g iv in g
a r e
to
o f
c a u t io n :
p o r t a n t
to
a w
in
o f
s e n s e
o n ly
o f
illin g
a lt e r n a t iv e s
in
o r d
I t ’ s
b e
w
u n c o n v e n t io n a l
t r y in g
For example, “Mr. Hadid, I understand that no
one wants to sacrifice profit, but perhaps you
can tell me why you will not lower your mar­
gin on this particular deal just a few points.”
Or, “Please, help me to understand why you
want to keep that clause in the agreement.”
Or, “Why is that issue is so important to you?”
f le x ib le
t h e
g r o u n d ,
y o u r
m
ig h t
b e
a d v a n t a g e
f le x ib le ,
p o lit e ly
r e c ip r o c it y .
I f
–
b u t
o n
–
; *x
r
7. Keep (most of)
your thoughts to
yourself. Poor ne­
g o tiato rs have a
tendency to come
to the bargaining
table and lay out
everything they know and want
right then and there. Clear com­
munication is a vital part of ne­
gotiation, but there’s no sense as­
suming that the other side knows
everything you and your team are
thinking. Remember the scene in
The Godfather when Sollozzo
is pitching his deal to cooperate
in the drug trade, and Sonny
Corleone butts in with the sur­
prised comment: Are you telling
me the Tattaglias will guarantee
our investment? Later on, Vito
chastises his son: Never ever tell
anyone outside the family what
you’re thinking again. Vito was
right, because Sonny’s careless
comment precipitated an attack
on the don’s life. The Godfather
16
is fiction, but that scene demon­
strated wisdom. Never share ev­
erything with your counterparts;
be honest, but provide only what
is absolutely necessary. This is
true even if you have obtained
non-disclosure agreements and
non-circumvention agreements.
You are under no obligation to
provide your thinking on all mat­
ters. It’s a safe bet the other ne­
gotiators will be acting that way.
8. Control the negotiation. I
don’t mean talking incessantly
or using an aggressive tone with
others. You can listen twice as
much as you talk and still fully
guide the conversation. The way
to control a negotiation is to ask
the other participants a combina­
tion o f direct and open-ended
questions. If someone begins
to ramble with an answer, you
can politely reel them back in
with a direct yes/no question.
For example, “Ms. Whitcomb,
| Be creative. Hard-andfast rules can often derail
a negotiation before it
begins. Creativity can
often becom e the leverage
that gets a stuck deal
back on track. Rem em ber
that deals don’t always
have to be black and
w h ite. If you cannot come
to an agreem ent, consider
restructuring the term s
rather than com prom ising.
There Is alw ays leverage
available for the creative
negotiator.
I want to clarify something. You
did say 10 percent, correct?” This
allows for a break in the action
and provides a chance for oth­
ers to join in the discussion, or
for you to ask another question.
You can also use the technique
if someone else tries to control
the conversation. That person
might try to monopolize the time
by laying out expectations and
demands for everyone else at the
table. The way to counteract it is
to interrupt them, politely, with
a question demonstrating that
although you’re listening, you’re
nevertheless the person directing
the discussion – even if no formal
moderator has been assigned. I
call this the adult-in-the-room
technique. For example, “Mr.
Polande, please allow me to inter­
rupt you for a moment. You have
gone on for quite some time, and
I would like to hear the opinions
of the others at the table. Could
we please hear someone else’s
ideas for getting this deal done?”
9. Come prepared. Call it a
v ariatio n on the Boy Scout
m o tto . A rriv in g p re p a re d
to a negotiation is different
than doing your hom ew ork.
It means what you bring with
you and w hat yo u r o v erall
strategy w ill entail. On the
television show The A ppren­
tice, starring real-estate mogul
D o n ald T rum p, you m ig h t
have noticed George H. Ross,
Trum p’s attorney for over 30
years, offerin g his in sig h ts
from time to time. Mr. Ross
published an exceptional book
on negotiation, Trum p-Style
Negotiation: Powerful Strate­
gies and Tactics for M astering
Every Deal. The key takeaway
I gleaned from R oss’s exper­
tise is the idea that you can
create what he calls the “aura
of legitimacy” by arriving with
your own documentation, i.e.,
c o n tra c t a g re e m e n t fo rm s,
to begin your discussion. By
preparing documentation that
will finalize the terms o f the
negotiation on your side o f the
table, you have demonstrated
preparation, w illingness and
enthusiasm for completing the
Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International
Vol. 21, No.3
deal. This will serve you in a
number o f ways:
• You set the tone and tim e­
line o f the negotiation with
your documents. You might
even intimidate others into
believing you’ve fully re­
searched all viable options
o f the deal already; thus
they should trust your con­
clusions.
• Y o u ’ve e n c o u ra g e d the
other side to go along with
you, because you’ve done
all o f the groundwork.
• Your docum entation will
keep people on the record
and discourage them from
reneging on an agreement.
• By controlling the docu­
mentation, you also control
the conversation.
• Y o u ’ve d e m o n s t r a t e d
y o u ’ll be no pushover at
the negotiating table.
10. Be creative. H ard-andfast rules can often derail a
negotiation before it begins.
Creativity can often become the
leverage that gets a stuck deal
back on track. Remember that
deals don’t always have to be
black and white. If you cannot
come to an agreement, consider
restructuring the terms rather
than com prom ising. There is
always leverage available for
the creative negotiator.
Keep these 10 tips tucked away
in your back pocket before your
next international negotiation
and discover how much more
successful your business deal­
ings can be. For m ore tips,
including my “Hard and Fast
Rules o f a Negotiation,” please
pick up a copy o f my book,
G lobal Security C onsulting:
How to Build a Thriving Inter­
national Practice.
A b out th e A u th o r
Luke Bencie is the Managing Director
o f Security Management International,
LLC, a global intelligence advisory
firm. He is also the author o f Among
Enemies: Counter-Espionage
fo r the Business Traveler. He
can be reached at lbencie@
smiconsultancy. com
Copyright of Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International is the property
of International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals (IACSP) and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
Settling International Business Disputes
with China: Then and Now
Jerome A. CohenT
A Generation Later—Substantial Progress, b u t ……………………………
I. M ediation……………………………………………………………………….
II. A rbitration……………………………………………………………………..
III. Adjudication ………………………………………………………………….
C onclusion………………………………………………………………………………..
558
558
561
565
567
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has come a long way with
respect to settling international business disputes. At the time of my first
Chinese business discussions at the Canton Trade Fair in May 1973, the
PRC was still using only Soviet-style foreign trade companies to conduct
trade with the socialist world and other foreign entities. In early 1979,
however, the PRC began to establish many additional companies to meet
the needs of Deng Xiaoping’s new “open policy” of broader cooperation
with the bourgeois world.
These new companies wanted to attract foreign investment, not merely
trade. Yet, in initial contract negotiations, their inexperienced staff often
did not want to discuss dispute resolution. The new executives saw no need
to include the simple arbitration provision that was commonly used by
traditional PRC trading companies*1 or even the customary innocuous
clause requiring parties to seek the assistance of a mediator if they were
unable to resolve their dispute through their own negotiations.2 To justify
their position, these newcomers would invoke the analogy of marriage,
arguing that the betrothed do not focus on divorce when planning their
wedding. Of course, this led me to tell the executives that, outside
proletarian China, prenuptial agreements were not uncommon if one or
both parties brought substantial assets to their union.
At that time, no Chinese lawyers took part in our contract
negotiations, as the “anti-rightist” campaign of 1957-58 decimated their
ranks, and these lawyers were not restored to practice until 1981.3
t Professor of Law, New York University School of Law. The author would like to
thank Chaoyi Jiang for her research cooperation, comments, and translation.
1. This observation is made based on the author’s personal experience when
representing foreign companies in contract negotiations with these newly-established
Chinese companies.
2. This observation is also made based on the author’s personal experience when
representing foreign companies in contract negotiations with these newly-established
Chinese companies.
3. See Shao-Chuan Leng, Criminal Justice in Post-Mao China: Some Preliminary
Observations, 73 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 204, 205 (1982).
47 C ornell Int ’l L.J. 555 (2014)
556
Cornell International Law Journal
Vol. 47
Although they lacked formal legal education, a handful of trade officials
continued to staff the Legal Department of the China Council for the
Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) during and after the Cultural
Revolution of 1966-76, but they generally remained in their office.4 I
called on them at the CCPIT occasionally, but I never encountered any of
them in negotiations. So the burden fell on me, in those early 1979
negotiations, to explain that, in the absence of a relevant provision in the
contract, any dispute that had to be formally resolved would inevitably end
up in court somewhere unless the parties, after occurrence of the dispute,
could agree on another method. Such agreements frequendy proved
impossible.
It was not until the promulgation of contemporary China’s first law
welcoming foreign direct investment on July 1, 1979 —the Equity Joint
Venture Law (EJV Law)—that Chinese negotiators, whose companies were
new to foreign transactions, began to feel comfortable discussing dispute
resolution clauses.5 That is because Article 15 provided: “Disputes arising
between the parties to an equity joint venture that the board of directors
has failed to settle through consultation may be settled through mediation
or arbitration by an arbitration agency of China or through arbitration by
another arbitration agency agreed upon by the parties.”6
This language was permissive and left open the possibility that the
parties might also agree upon resort to the courts, a possibility that was
later explicitly authorized. Yet, during this initial period for welcoming
foreign investment, I knew that the Chinese side would not risk resorting
to the courts. Its representatives understood virtually nothing about, and
were suspicious of, American state and federal courts, as well as the courts
of other countries, including those of the Soviet Union and the other
“socialist” countries that had dominated China’s business relations since
the establishment of the PRC in 1949. Actually, Chinese negotiators knew
little even about their own country’s courts, which were only beginning to
recover from the devastation suffered by the judiciary during the Cultural
Revolution.
What surprised me before the promulgation of the EJV Law was the
number of investment negotiations in which the Chinese side did not press
for an arbitration clause. For three decades, arbitration clauses had been
standard in the PRC’s specialized foreign trade companies’ contracts with
the socialist world.7 So far as I could tell, in that opaque era, most of the
contracts that PRC trading companies had made with European and
Japanese companies during the 1970s also contained clauses calling for
4. See Jerome A. Cohen, The Missionary Spirit Dies Hard, HK Eco. J. (Sept. 3, 2011),
online as part of the “My First Trip to China” series, http://features.hkej.com/template/
features/html/first_trip/index.jsp.
5. See Law of the People’s Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Equity Joint
Ventures (promulgated by the Standing Comm. Nat’l People’s Cong., July 8, 1979),
available at http://www.china.org.cn/english/DAT/214773.htm (China).
6. Id.
7. See e.g., Sally L. Ellis & Laura Shea, Foreign Commercial Dispute Settlement in the
People’s Republic of China, 6 Md . J. Int ’l L. 155, 161 (1981).
2014
Settling International Business Disputes with China
557
arbitration by what was then known as China’s “Foreign Trade Arbitration
Commission” (FTAC).8
During the 1973 Canton Trade Fair, I spent several evenings in the bar
of the Dongfang Hotel avidly listening to the sad tales of European
commercial attaches and businessmen who described disputes that had
arisen with China and their fruitless efforts to persuade PRC foreign trade
companies to honor their contract arbitration clauses in order to settle…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment