Communicating and Negotiating
Negotiation, according to Hayes (1991), is a cooperative decision-making process in which parties with divergent interests try to come to an agreement. Distributive and contingency bargaining is the main method of negotiation used in India. Although the buyer is in a stronger position, both parties in a business negotiation have an obligation to come to an agreement.
They look for long-term commitments from their business partners and will mostly concentrate on the advantages down the road. Indian businesses are frequently adept negotiators, therefore they shouldn't be disregarded. Although they might not do it as frequently as other Asians, the majority of them enjoy negotiating and bargaining.
Uncertainty avoidance refers to the level of stability or uncertainty tolerance(Hofstede, 1980). India has a fairly low preference for avoiding ambiguity with a score of 40 on this metric. Nothing has to be perfect or go according to plan; imperfections are accepted in India. India is known for having a high level of tolerance for the unexpected and even welcomes it as a change of pace. Expect a tedious and drawn-out bargaining process. In particular, when dealing with government bureaucracy, delays are frequently unavoidable.
​
Indian businesses are often very hierarchically structured. In negotiations, decisions are generally made at the highest levels. Therefore, unless the company director, owner, or senior manager is present at a meeting, a decision is not likely to occur at that stage. As power distance refers to attitudes about authority and the separation of people in a hierarchy (Hofstede, 1980). India has a high score on this dimension (77), indicating that it values hierarchy and top-down organizational structures. The following terms and phrases could be used to describe the attitude of Indians: reliant on the supervisor or the person in authority for guidance.
However, communication within an Indian organisation is also significantly influenced by hierarchy. Research by Hair, Friedrich, Shaver, and also Fisher (2002) has supported this. As Indian organizations are strongly influenced by hierarchical structure messages can be sent in three different directions: downward, upward, and horizontally. The information flow from superiors to subordinates in an organisational hierarchy is referred to as downward communication. The fundamental issue here might be that management and employees have different priorities in terms of communication. The messages that subordinates transmit to superiors are referred to as upward communication.
​
As people are sometimes reluctant to acknowledge their own errors or to submit information that would indicate their employer was mistaken, there is a risk that employees will typically only report positive news. Messages between peers are transmitted horizontally in lateral communication. The degree of departmental interdependence affects how much horizontal communication takes place through official channels. Horizontal communication may be frequent and intense if the firm demands coordinated action from its organisational components. However, if each department runs independently, there is little formal connection between them. Therefore, lateral communication coordinates; upward communication informs; and downward communication commands and teaches.
​
Compared to most other Asian nations, gestures, and body language are typically far more elaborate in India. However, save for handshakes, refrain from making physical contact with others. Even though Indians may look their peers in the eye frequently, turning your back is typically a show of respect and does not suggest that you are being sincere or dishonest.
Compared to most other Asian nations, gestures, and body language are typically far more elaborate in India. However, save for handshakes, and refrain from making physical contact with others. Even though Indians may look their peers in the eye frequently, turning your back is typically a show of respect and does not suggest that you are being sincere or dishonest.
​
An Indian who regards you as superior could be hesitant to give you honest criticism. Instead, especially when other people are around, the individual can say what they believe you want to hear. You and the person can maintain your good reputation by doing this. Similar to this, when asked to provide constructive criticism, people may choose to solely emphasise the positives, in which case you should pay close attention to what is not being mentioned. Only in private and frequently indirectly through a third party are sincere remarks and criticisms allowed to be shared.
Challenges of Negotiating in Indian Organisation
In any organisation, and India is no different, negotiation is a crucial talent. However, when it comes to negotiating, Indian organisations encounter a number of difficulties.
​
Indian culture, which Chhokar and Brodbeck (2013) claim places a high priority on relationships, trust, and respect, might slow down the bargaining process. Additionally, due to the hierarchical structure of Indian society, negotiations can be complicated and challenging since people may be more likely to follow their superiors' example than to negotiate independently.
The propensity for negotiations in India to centre on establishing and maintaining connections rather than precisely reaching a particular conclusion poses a considerable problem as well (Pruzan, 2014). Due to the parties' efforts to create a foundation of respect and understanding, discussions may become drawn out and time-consuming due to the emphasis on developing rapport and trust.
​
When faced with tardy and delayed decision-making, the culturally shared and consultative attitude may be a useful maxim that empowers the workforce, or it may allow employees to hide behind others (Budhwar and Verma, 2010).
Finally, Indian organisations must deal with the impact of outside forces like bureaucracy and corruption, which may undermine discussions and reduce the effectiveness of agreements (Batra, 2018).